HomeMy WebLinkAboutPINE RIDGE SECOND ANNEXATION & ZONING - 67-88, A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning r rd Meeting
September 26, 1988 M,._.,.tes .�
Page 5
�T agency that licenses them. Requirements exist for bedroom floor areas per
person. Qualifications for staff were licensed by the state. The state has
mandated that the Board not consider this as any kind of rental or commer-
cial enterprise. The Board only judges if the land use was appropriate.
The Board cannot address enforcement. This would be on a complaint basis.
These were private matters and have to be pursued privately.
Chairperson O'Dell stated that the Board changed the requirements of group
homes last year and she felt confident that this proposal meets all those
requirements.
Member Kern asked if this controverted having 3 unrelated person in a resi-
dence.
Mr. Eckman replied that it did not.
Member Edwards stated that the same arguments are raised each time a group
home is reviewed. He felt the real issue is the threat of change in the use
of the residence in the neighborhood. All objections have a flip side. The
community should say to do it but in a style to benefit everyone. The
safety questions is always raised. Elderly people can add quality, continu-
ity and roots to a community as opposed to hot rods and dirt bikes. He felt
that a family with 3 or 4 teenagers living in this area could be more dis-
ruptive than 4 or 5 elderly residents. There were rentals all around this
area. The more statements made about a lot of rentals around just enforces
the conformancy of this use.
Member Kern amended the motion by changing Condition #1 to "A group home of
elderly residents limited to a maximum of 5."
Member Edwards and Member Groznik accepted this amendment.
Motion to approve Douglas Manor Group Home carried 7-0.
PINE RIDGE FIRST ANNEXATION AND ZONING - #66-88,A
PINE RIDGE SECOND ANNEXATION AND ZONING - #*-88,A
�1
Linda Ripley gave a description of Pine Ridge First and Second Annexations
and Zonings stating that this was a voluntary annexation. She added that
there had been a number of calls concerned about the R-F zone.
Ken Wai do gave a description and history of the R-F zone by stating that
this property was an open space area. The only development anticipated in
the property was the extension of the foothills trail to eventually meet
with the Spring Creek trail. This area will not be developed into a park.
The residential zoning was applied to properties in the foothills area.
Staff recommended this zone because this is the zoning district that is to
be applied to properties in this area. There exists no open space zone or
governmental zone to apply to city -owned property in the City Code. A zone
district is used which applies to the general vicinity in which the parks
are located. Covenants are not attached to restrict any development because
covenants are agreements between private property owners and the public.
The County developed.a Foothills Plan in 1982 and the City developed a plan
in 1970. This city -owned open space area should be annexed into the city
proper.
Planning and Zonino"oard Meeting
September 26, 1988 v,,autes
Page 6
Member Walker asked if this annexation would require property owners in the
area to annex into the city?
Mr. Waido stated that this particular annexation did not create an enclave.
No property owner would be put into a position that they would be in an
enclave and subject to an unilateral annexation by the city within three
years.
Member Groznik asked if there could be a condition stating that this land
be used as open space purposes.
Mr. Eckman stated that to impose a condition as part of the zoning would be
possible by City Council. This would be subject to change by a future City
Council. If the property had been conveyed to the city with a deed restric-
tion, then the restrictions would have to be followed.
Member Edwards asked if this property could be zoned T-Transition in order
that neighbors could feel that, if anything were going to happen on this
property, there would be assured of the potentional of public hearings and
other recommendations.
Mr. Waido replied that the T-Transition zone means that it could be zoned
to something else. This could be less restrictive than R-F zoning. This
property was bought for open space used for open space.
Mr. Peterson stated that if the city came back later with an open space
zone, this would be the same zoning condition as in the R-F zone. If the
concern was with the neighbors that something, such as a golf course, were
proposed, then any development other than trailhead development would go
through the process of a public hearing conducted by the Parks and Recre-
ation staff.
Member Kern moved to approve Pine Ridge First Annexation and Zoning and
Pine Ridge Second Annexation and Zoning. Member Edwards seconded the
motion.
Member Walker commented that there were enough safeguards built into the
process that makes this proposal appropriate.
Member Edwards concurred with Member Walker but felt there was a hole in
our zoning ordinances to have an unstated policy that property owned by the
city similar to what happens to be around them is a backwards approach to
an unstated policy. If there is a way to find a zoning provision called
public purpose or open space this should be reviewed.
Motion to approve passed 7-0.
WESTSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN - 75-88
Member Walker moved to table this item to the October 24, 1988 Planning and
Zoning Board meeting. Member Klataske seconded. Motion to table carried