CCMIN040571 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Fales reiterated in detail the background of the subject parcel which was the focus of a bitter annexation battle in the early 1960's. Mr. Fales stated that when the land was annexed there were certain moral obligations created for both the City and Castlewood Enter- prises regarding the zoning. Mr. Fales also stated that there was nothing in writing but there were compromises made and now the Council has to ask itself ho~ long such moral agreements should hold. Mr. Fales emphasized the fact that no council can bind the actions of any future council. Mr. Fales, when asked by Councilman Spiliotopoulos, speculated on the fate of the City, had this property not been annexed. Councilman Pearson asked Attorney Roessler whether or not there was an option on the Castlewood Enterprises property. Mr. Roessler re- plied that there was no option, either orally or in writing and that he could not understand how Mr. McLeod could have heard the "$40,000 an acre" rumor. Councilman Ccr~oi~ asked to see the brochure presented by Mr. McLeod and after reviewing it, asked ~r. Roessler to explain the plans con- rained in the brochure. Mr. Roessler stated that it was merely a concept. or plan prepared in the early 1960's and never was a definite proposal. Mr. Fales interjected at this point by stating that this brochure was presented to the Planning Commission but because the Zoning Ordinance was not completed the City was not equipped to deal ~,~ith a PUD at that time. ~yor Reid summarized the 1962 zoning established by that City Council ! ~ s~.ating that this property ~as annexed, ~gith certain moral committ- ments, in order to thwart other incorporations to split, what we now know is our planning area, into some other jurisdictions, and in ~oing so, that City Council envolked some moral committments even though they are not legal, Mayor Reid reiterated that no one city council can com~itt any subsequent city council to any action what- so-ever. ;He also stated that he felt that each city council has to ueigh ~hc moral obligation to the city and its citizens. He concluded th'at~he Council has received sufficient testimony and felt the alternatives the councilmen ahve is to approve the Plann- ing Commission's recommendation as submitted, to modify the Plann- ing Commission' s recommendation, or to deny th~~ a~lication'of-~the Planning Commission. ~ayor Reid stated that should the City Council choose to deny the application, the zoning would remain as 4.88 acres in the Community CommercialsDistrict; 8.32 acres in the Neighborhood Commercila Dist- rict; and~ 4.25 acres in the Office District. Both Councilman Pearson and Councilman Spiliotopoulos asked Mr. Hirst what problems might arise if the City Council desired to rezone this property to single family residence. Mr. Hirst stated that he thought it could be done. Councilman Gerton then asked Mr. Hirst that in the event the case went to court, did he think the City would win. Mr. Hirst replied that he thought the City could win. It was moved by Councilman Spiliotopoulos and seconded by Council- man Beratlis that Ordinance No. 625, amending Ordinance No. 520, approving the recommendation of the Planning Commission to rezone from 4.88 acres of Community Commercial and 8.32 acres of Neighbor- hood Commercial and 4.25 acres of Office District to 5.8 acres of Neighborhood Commercial, 1.0 acres of Office District and 10.65 acres of P~4-2500 Multiple District, be introduced. Councilman Pearson l initiated discussion concerning the traffic prob- lem the multiple zoning would create on Foothill Road. Mayor Reid agreed that traffic on Foothill Road was a concern but statistics 3. 4-5-71