The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04121984 ZPC Minutesr' '• ~ ~e ~C~?~~N~ b Pi..~.''. !`~'G i;~P7I?~'~~ ~~zM'. ES Apri] ]2, 1984 The reguJar meeting of the 2oning and Plannin~ Commission was held with all members present. The first item on the agenda was hearing of residents. There being no cou~ents frou the residents, there was a motion to open the Public Heering on the subdivision request application No. 84-5, 3506 Sunset Boulevard. The motion to open the Hearin£ ka~ made b~° Mike 0'Leer~~ and seconded by Jim Norton. The Chaira;an aske~ w~}ether proper notice had been given and it was stated that it had. The hcaring then proceeded with the subdivision hearing nrocedur.es bein€ followed. The speakers for those opposed to the subdi~~ision made their statements, which are su~narized as follows. Nir. Richard Mithoff of 3423 Sunset pointed out the original plat and established that the subdivision of ~arge lots into smaller ones de~-alues the ad~acent pronerties. He said that subdividing invites "tract" tyFe homes and that these change the character and appearance of the Cit~•. He preseated a letter previousl}~ sent to the Cit}~ • s~rongl~- object~ng to City staff calling and poll.ing those signing the petition opposed to the subdivision during the signature verifi- cation grocess. He felt that this was "tampering" with the voting pracess. N,r. ?;ark Spradling of 3315 Sunset remarked that the State Starute priar to the ]stest revisions required 100°' approval of residents withir. the noticed a~zea. He advised ehec~:ing ta see that the numher of ~ots in the noti:cd area matches the number of ]ot= renresented in the pet;ti~ns for an~ against the subdivision. Some people with- in the noticed area did not rr:eive notices. He ouestioned the '-~ vate per lot . ?"ne Cl-,air~r:an then reaci the State Statute pertaining i.c v~:_e~ b~ ~ot. !~`.r. t'rc«srdt oi 3302 C.eorgEt~~~.-r cucstioned whether there were anv conflicts oi i,,t~r~s* in~~ol~~in€, Couua:ssi~n memhers and this subdivision case. 7*_ ~as s~aced b~~ all ~~~mbers that there were none. ti:rs. fio'r,ar,~~vn of 3318 h.~ttin~.`,a~: said that she ~as asl:ed bti• L~Iephone if shr h~a changed }.er ~ind on heing oppesed to the subdiv5sion. *;r. fiicl;ard T:;tY~off :,.aoe for-r.:al z-rouest that t}iis ~u~di.~>>sion reauest • ~ 'r ~ tabled until. the telephane c~~ni]sct involving individuals signing • petitions could be resolv~d. The Cnairman explained the, events in- volved in the City trt~ing ta make proper veri~ication of signatures in situat.ions involvi.ng duplication of names. Mr. Charles Shaver of 3506 Sunset stated that one person thought that he was signing "only to have a hearing," and that another person __ didn't "understand the issues and might want to change his vote." He pointed out that there were 66 2/3 of the lot owners' signatures on the "for" pe.tition and that this fulfilled requirements. Mr. Grimes of 3201 University stated that he was not for any intimidation but that he was also against delays in processing of subdivision cases. Mr. Charles Shaver of 3506 Sunset stated that the subdivision was not harmful to the City and that the resulting lots would be larger than the minimum lot size. He added that this "development" should be encouraged to keep the City available to people who are not immensely wealthy. He mentioned that this new development would increase the tax rolls. ~ Mr. Steve Toomey of 6344 Rutgers expressed concern with the direction of the City, with the notice question and with the setting of neighbor against neighbor. He also exvressed concern about who was responsible for voting for lots owned by churches and urged that the subdivision be • tabled until questions on notices and signatures could be resolved. Committee member Tish Taitte moved to close the Hearing. The motion was seconded by Mike 0`Leary. The vote carried with only Committee member Jim Norton opposing. He wanted to make sure everyone present had anple opportunity to be heard. Member Mike 0'Leary then made the motion that in view of questions raised about notification of all parties concerned, the decision on whether or not the Shaver application should be accepted for con- sideration be tabled until the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Zoning and Planning Co~ission. Gommittee member Tish Taitte seconded the motion. Al1 Committee m~mbers voted in favor of the motion. A brief recess was declared. The second item on the agenda was the req_uest for subdivision application of Judith A. Briggs and Reva Jean Rohe, 3302 University Boulevard, Docket ~184-6. Committee member Jim Norton withdrew from discussion since he lives in the noticed area. A petition bearing the signatures of approximately 70% of the in- dividuals in the noticed 'are.a who were opposed to•the subdivision was presented. The subdivision was denied pending verifi.cation of the signatur~s. • Tish Taitte moved to close the meeting and the motion was seconded by ,~ . ~~r , ~ Mike 0'Lear~•. ~ - The meet.ing then turned to review of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments under consideration. The Amendments were reviewed and it was decided that the Secretarv would transmit them to City Council with a letter covering the items.on which concensus had been reached. - The meeting was then adjourned. . ~ r" " • • • ZONING & PLANNING MEETING MINUTES April 12, 1984 The regular meeting of the Zoning and Planning Commission was held with all members present. The first item on the agenda was hearing of residents. There being no comments from the residents, there was a motion to open the Public Hearing on the subdivision request application No. 84- 5, 3506 Sunset Boulevard. The motion to open the Hearing was made by Mike O'Leary and seconded by Jim Norton. The Chairman asked whether proper notice had been given and it was stated that it had. The hearing then proceeded with the subdivision hearing procedures being followed. The speakers for those opposed to the subdivision made their statements, which are summarized as follows. Mr. Richard Mithoff of 3423 Sunset pointed out the original plat and established that the subdivision of large lots into smaller ~ ones devalues the adjacent properties. He said that subdividing invites "tract" type homes and that these change the character and appearance of the City. He presented a letter previously sent to the City strongly objecting to City staff calling and polling those signing the petition opposed to the subdivision during the signature verification process. He felt that this was "tampering" with the voting process. ~ Mr. Mark Spradling of 3315 Sunset remarked that the State Statute prior to the lastest revisions required 100$ approval of residents within the noticed area. He advised checking to see that the number of lots in the noticed area matches the number of lots represented in the petitions for and against the subdivision., So,~ne people within the noticed area did not receive notices. He`~ue~~ioned the 1/2 vote per lot. The Chairman then read the State~~.Sta~ute pertaining to votes by lot. Mr. Urquardt of 3302 Georgetown questioned whether there were any conflicts of interest involving Commission members and this subdivision case. It was stated by all members that there were none. Mrs. Bohannon of 3318 Nottingham said that she was asked by telephone if she had changed her mind on being opposed to the subdivision. r . 1 `~ J ~ w~ • • • Mr. Richard Mithoff made formal request that this subdivision request be tabled until the telephone conflict involving individuals signing petitions could be resolved. The Chairman explained the events involved in the City trying to make proper verificaation of signatures in situations involving duplication of names. Mr. Charles Shaver of 3506 Sunset stated that one person thought that he was signing "only to have a hearing," and that another person didn't "understand the issues and might want to change his vote." He pointed out that there were 66-2/3 of the lot owners' signatures on the "for" petition and that this fulfilled requirement. Mr. Grimes of 3201 University stated that he was not for any intimidation but that he was also against delays in processing of subdivision cases. Mr. Charles Shaver of 3506 Sunset stated that the subdivision was not harmful to the City and that the resulting lots would be larger than the minimum lot size. He added that this "development" should be encouraged to keep the City available to people who are not immensely wealthy. He mentioned that this new • development would increase the tax rolls. Mr. Steve Toomey of 6344 Rutgers expressed concerns with the direction of the City, with the notice question and with the setting of neighbor against neighbor. He also expressed concern about who was responsible for voting for lots owned by churches and urges that the subdivision be tabled until questions on notices and signatures could be resolved. Committee member Tish Taitte moved to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Mike O'Leary. The vote carried with only Committee member ,7im Norton opposing. Member Mike O'Leary then made the motion that in view of questions raised about notification or, the apparent lack of notice to all parties concerned as required by Article 974(a), the decision on whether or not the Shaver application should be accepted for consideration pursuant to Ordinance 1212 provisions be tabled .until the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Zoning and Planning Commission. Committee member Tish Taitte seconded the motion. All Committee members voted in favor of the motion. A brief recess was declared. The second item on the agenda was the request for subdivision application of Judith A. Briggs and Reva Jean Rohe, 3302 2 i' " ~^ . • • • University Boulevard, Docket #84-6. Committee member Jim Norton withdrew from discussion since he lives in the noticed area. A petition bearing the signatures of approximately 70$ of the individuals in the noticed area was presented. This petition was against the proposed subdivision. Tish Taitte moved to close the hearing and to begin consideration of Application ~84-6. Mike 0'Leary seconded the motion. Al1 voting yes. After consideration and discussion, Committee member Tish Taitte moved to deny the application due to the adverse impact on the orderly development and general welfare of the City. Mike O'Leary seconded the motion. A vote was taken and all members voted to deny the Application ~84-6. The meeting then turned to review of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments under consideration. The Amendments were reviewed and it was decided that the Secretary would transmit them to City Council with a letter covering the items on which concensus had been reached. • The meeting was then adjourned. Chairman ATTEST: Secretary Minutes reviewed and adopted July 12, 1984. 3