CC MIN 1977 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

346 (Gouncilman Bury arrived at 7 33 p m.) City Clerk Hildebrand reported the Affidavit of Pu6lication of Notice of Hearing and the Affidavit of Mailing are on file in her office Robert Dell'Ergo, attorney representing Peter Rodriguez, the appellant, ' referred to the Planning Commission Minutes and to the material fur- nished by the Planning Department regarding the sub�ect appeal Mr. Dell'Ergo introduced Peter Rodriguez and his mother Mrs Kathy Rodriguez who were present in the audience Mr. Dell'Ergo commented concerning the contents of his appeal letter of June 28, 1977 and stated that since writing the letter he has been authorized by Mr. Rodriguez to say that if the requested zoning for R-3 District is granted, Mr. Rodriguez �s w1111ng to execute a restr�ctive covenant to the effect that he will construct only a duplex on the property. Mr. Dell'Ergo urged that consideration of the actual multi-family use made of neighboring properties be considered rather than the fact those properties are zoned R-1, noting that a duplex develop- ment would serve as a buffer between the apartments and the single- fam�ly homes in the area. City Attorney Schricker advised that if Council wishes to restrict development on the sub,7ect property to a duplex, then it would be appropriate to zone the property R-2, noting that no provision exists for written agreements as to property use and that the application was made for the R-3 des�gnat�on Discussion followed and Mr Schricker and Mr Dell'Ergo commented and replied to questions concerning the appropriate procedures for rezoning of the sub,7ect property to R-2, whether �t might not aiso be appropriate to consider rezoning the ad�acent properties whose � use does not conform to the R-1 District, whether the General Plan is affected, the desirability of avoiding "spot zoning", the possible impact of the establishment of an R-2 lot among others zoned R-1, the fact that the sub�ect lot is much larger than required for R-1 development and that it fronts on a ma,7or street, and whether or not the appellant might be required to make application for the R-2 designation since h�s original application was for R-3 and that is what was considered and denied by the Planning Commission. Following discussion between City Attorney Schricker and Planning Director Schroeter, it was determined that it would be possible to rezone from R-1 to R-2 without affecting the General Plan, since for the purposes of the General Plan, both districts are regarded as low , density residential Mr Schroeter noted that the Zo m ng Ordinance contains provision for seven such districts while the General Plan includes only four, so that district designations must be grouped for consideration Discussion continued as to whether or not it would be more desirable to consider the neighborhood as a whole with regard to the sub,7ect properties, the ad,7acent properties containing apartments and the neighboring lots having similar frontage�with the appellant to make application for the rezoning he has now requested —that is�from R-1 to R-2 rather than R-3 as originally requested — or whether the new ' request of Mr Rodriguez for R-2 designation for his property could be granted now and a resolution of intention be adopted regarding possible redesignation of the other properties later Reg Mtgs -2- 7/25/77 > ✓i� �'