|
<br /> {; 77 e
<br /> 8/23/71
<br /> ,
<br /> In answer to Mr. Williams concerns about overlaying Coburg Road between Frontie~ and I
<br /> ,: Oakway, Mr. Tietzel of Public Works explained that water stands on the asphalt itself
<br /> Ii and the city is trying to get better drainage. The situation creates a hazard for'
<br /> pedestrians walking on the sidewalk.
<br /> Ii
<br /> I, Rollcall vote on motion as stated; Mr. Williams voted no. Motion carried.
<br /> II
<br /> I: II. Reconsideration of Recommendation re: Annexation of property located west of Fox Hollow
<br /> Ii
<br /> Ii and south of Donald (Allen and Braezeal).
<br /> I:
<br /> Ii Annexation of property on Fox Hollow was referred to the Boundary Commission by the City
<br /> " Council' at 'a' former meeting. Since that time, residents in the area have petitioned the
<br /> "
<br /> il Council to reconsider its recommendation to the Boundary Commission.
<br /> I'
<br /> [I
<br /> !i Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the Council reconsider its recommendation on
<br /> iI
<br /> I
<br /> II annexation of property located west of Fox Hollow, south of Donald. i
<br /> ,I Councilman Mohr explained that the petition was before the Boundary Commission and they e
<br /> !I would have to -act on it. He wondered what would be done with the property if the Council
<br /> "
<br /> I' withdrew its support. Mrs. Beal felt that the Boundary Commission would then deny the
<br /> "
<br /> "
<br /> ii application.
<br /> "
<br /> I'
<br /> "
<br /> :1 Mr. Mohr said the Council had discussed this fully at the last Council meeting before making
<br /> I,
<br /> ii its decision. He could see no reason for reversal, unless there was some new material.
<br /> I'
<br /> II I
<br /> II City Manager explained to Mr. Mohr that, if the Council reversed its position, it ?houiJ- !:
<br /> "
<br /> I: probably forward a written communication to the Boundary Commissi6n~to submit it's poln-t-'of ;,
<br /> I view. '-
<br /> "
<br /> Ii
<br /> I' Mr. Williams pointed out that, after the Council forwarded this petition to the Boundary
<br /> Ii
<br /> "
<br /> Ii Commission, he had requested the Planning staff to develop tools whereby the Council could
<br /> ii restrict the eensity of development of, this particular kind of site. "
<br /> :,
<br /> I'
<br /> "
<br /> Ii Question called:on motion to reconsider annexation. Mr. Hershner.commented that he would
<br /> Ii
<br /> ,I abstain, since a client of his law firm is involved in this property. Mrs. Campbell, Mrs.
<br /> I'
<br /> ,I Beal and Mr. Mohr 'voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Teague, Mr. Gribskov and Mr. Williams
<br /> Ii "
<br /> were opposed. Mayor Anderson voted in favor to break the tie. Motion carried. ':
<br /> ji "
<br /> "
<br /> "
<br /> The Planning Director said the Planning Commission had considered the question of density II
<br /> II 'I
<br /> ,I posed by Mr. Williams, and a report will be forthcoming. There are a number of areas : ~
<br /> i! adjacent to the urban service boundary, and it will be sometime before a report can be :
<br /> prepared.
<br /> I,
<br /> I,
<br /> II Mr. Williams asked that the Council stipulate that the Commission and staff develop a
<br /> "
<br /> I: technique acceptable to the City Attorney and Council whereby density might be restricted.
<br /> I:
<br /> \' Once property was annexed to the city, the lowest possible density would be RA, and the
<br /> Ii density could be reduced to be applicable to new annexations.
<br /> I:
<br /> !j City Manager pointed out that annexation had nothing to do with density, but the zoning I
<br /> I.
<br /> II ordinance may be changed to reflect different density requirements. The ordinance applies
<br /> :1 only to land within the city. As far as this particular property, there has been no commit-
<br /> il
<br />II ment as, to future use after annexation.
<br />I,
<br />Ii Lottie Streisinger, Route 4, Box 311, was concerned that the Council had not seen the property.
<br />:i Ci ty Manager pointed out that the Council had gone on tour to this site, and although not all
<br />I: councilmen were present, a good many had seen it.
<br />Ii
<br />" David Cole, Rt. 4 Box 308, said he own~d property adjacent to the property in question. He -
<br />II
<br />I: asked whether annexation automatically assured the developer that he could develop the property
<br />I! in any way he chose. Neighbors were concerned with the increased po~plation if the devel-
<br />I:
<br />Ii opment went ahead.
<br />'i
<br />II
<br />II Mayor Anderson pointed out that annexation and future development are:~woentirely different
<br />"
<br />I: questions. Conditions under which the land could be used would be the subject of another
<br />I'
<br />I! public hearing.
<br />Ii
<br />" ~ !
<br />:1
<br />/: Mr. Mohr agreed the matter of development was a different question, and pointed out that the
<br /> owners could, at the present time, develop property under county conditions, and there would
<br />I:
<br />I' be no controls, such as under city Planned Unit Development.
<br />II
<br />1:
<br />" There was further discussion of development of the property, whether under city or county
<br />I'
<br /> jurisdiction.
<br /> Jane Novik, 3960 Blanton Road, was in favor of annexation, and felt the density could be I
<br /> determined by later zoning. In answer to her questions, Manager said the property would be ';
<br /> zoned under the most restrictive deBsi ty in the city zoning ordinance. ::
<br />I:
<br />I, Mrs . Novik commented that Mr. Williams had made an excellent suggestion regarding density.
<br />"
<br />i:
<br /> Chris Attneave, Rt. 4 Box 319M, asked to respond to Mr. Mulder's contention that the project "
<br />Ii "
<br /> could be developed even if not annexed; She felt if this was the case, they would not be ':
<br />I' i!
<br />,\ requesting annexation and would start the project. She agreed with Mrs, Streisinger, "
<br />': that I, e
<br />,
<br />\'
<br /> 8/23/71 - 5
<br />~
<br />
|