HomeMy WebLinkAboutMP 132; Pacesetter Homes; Master Plan (MP) (23). MEMORANDUM
January 30, 1975
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: PROPOSED 60-ACRE ANNEXATION
The subject 60 acres was proposed for annexation as a part of the City's
consideration in Pre-Annexatior. Zoning Case ZC-145 and Master Plan 132.
The original applications were submitted by Pacesetter Homes on behalf of
the property owners (Mr. Robert Kostolany and Mr. Charles J. Kramer).
The 60-acre parcel is no longer in escrow with Pacesetter Homes, but the
property owners (Kostolany & Kramer) still have valid pre-annexational
zoning (P-C) and a valid master plan (MP-132).
The annexation was approved by LAFCO Resolution on February 4, 1974. LAFCO
requires the City to. act on the annexation request within one year (February
5, 1975) or the LAFCO approval becomes null and void.
Therefore, the City Council must either forward the annexation to the
Secretary of State or deny the annexation request by not acting on the
matter February '5, 1975.
Traditionally, City's annexation policy has suggested that property in the
unincorporated part of the "doughnut" be annexed as soon as possible and
preferrably be annexed in large blocks. This parcel, although 60 acres,
currently has two sides adjacent to existing City limits. If the Council
approves this annexation, the annexation would be logical and add another
small piece to the City currently within the "doughnut". The City Council
then, has two alternatives to consider prior to the time it acts formally
on the annexation.
(1) The Council must consider the value of the annexation and be cognizant
of the fact that since Pacesetter is no longer involved in the project,
future property owners or developers may ask the City to change the zone
(currently P-C) and alter the adopted Master Plan (MP-132).
(2) If it is not desirable to annex the property at this time, the Council
should be aware of the pre-annexational zoning already granted for the subject
parcel. It would be in the best interest of the City to hold public hearings
to rescind prior City Council action on the zoning and master plan so that
subsequent developmental programs would be new and the property owner and/or
developer would face new LAFCO process.
Donald A. Agatep
DAA/br