Laserfiche WebLink
g. Adoption of Resolution No. 72-6, authorizing an application for <br /> state funds to finance, in part, expenditures during the 1973-74 <br /> fiscal yearto replace the Arroyo Mocho Bridge on Santa Rita Road. <br /> <br /> The roll call vote wasas follows; <br /> <br /> AYES: Councilmen Beratlis, Gerton, Pearson, Spiliotopoulos and Mayor <br /> NOES: None Reid <br /> ABSENT: None <br /> <br /> PUBLIC HEARINGS <br /> <br /> There were no Public Hearings scheduled for this meeting. <br /> <br />MATTERS CONTINUED FOR..DICISION. <br /> <br /> Consideration.ofFoothill ZoninglMatter <br /> <br />Mr. Ted Fairfield, MacKay and Somps, presented drawings which offered <br />the following separate types.of development~ on the. Castlewood Enterprises' <br />property on Foothill Road: <br /> <br /> a. Possible development of the entire parcelfor a .City park. <br /> <br /> b. Plans for R-18,500 single-family housi~g~ith, a residential <br /> overlay district attached. <br /> <br /> c. Plans for R-1 10,000 with ROD-attached~andR-1 20,000 with ROD <br /> attached. <br /> <br /> d.A six-acre park site with balance of~the land in RM- 4,000, or <br /> 110 dwelling units at an 8.5 density per acre. <br /> <br /> e. RM-4',000'with planned unit development~attached, which would <br /> realize 125 units. <br /> <br /> f. Five acres of commercial, eight acres of multiple and three acres <br /> of developed park that would be donated tolthe city. <br /> <br />Mr. Fairfield stated that a plan for a comercial park and multiple <br />development was. not available at this. time. <br /> <br />Mr."F'ai'rfield reported on the improvement costs and density on each <br />typeof development. He emphasized that the improvement costs on the <br />lots under the three single family zoning'designations would range <br />upward.from $8,000.00 per lot, which would be exorbitant. <br /> <br />Mr. Roessler, representing Castlewood Enterprises~stated that the <br />RM-4000 zoning for the entire 77 acre parcel is the most appropriate <br />and economical land use.of any of the plans presented by Mr. Fairfield. <br />Mr. Roesslerfurther stated that anylofthe.'three single family de- <br />tached zoning designations are-unacceptable ~o the property owners. <br /> <br />Mr. Ed McDonald, Chairman of the RFD.Committee,.stated that his comm- <br />ittee andCastlewoodEnterprises have'reached 'animpasse, as RFD's <br />position is to zone the entire property'to allow for single family <br />detached homes. <br /> <br />Councilman Gerton stated that he was opposed to zoning property in a <br />manner that would cost the owner more to improve~the property than he <br />can sell it for. He suggested that if the RFD connot present a zoning <br />that is acceptable to the property owners, then they should take this <br />matter to court. <br /> <br /> 2. 1-10-72 <br /> <br /> <br />