09-28-98 Zoning & Annexation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning and Annexation Committee September 28, 1998 Page 3 Dr. Varner noted among other things that he does not believe the time is right for the project as proposed. He noted that as the District Councilmember where the Scottsdale Mall is located he is concerned about how the project would impact it and the initiatives proposed by the South Gateway. Dr. Varner then made a motion that Substitute Bill No. 64-98 be recommended unfavorably to the Council. The motion failed for the lack of a second. Councilmember Broden then made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Pfeifer that Substitute Bill No. 64-98 be recommended favorably to Council. The motion passed by a 3-1 vote with Dr. Varner being in the minority. Councilmember Hosinski then called upon Mr. Magliozzi to review Res. No. 98-143 which addresses the written Fiscal Plan and Policy for the proposed annexed area commonly known as the Kidder II Annexation (copy attached). Mr. Magliozzi noted that this is also a City-initiated annexation/rezoning which involves 43.56 acres. He then reviewed the details of the report. He noted that this is a non-contiguous annexation which meets the criteria of state law. He then showed the area with the assistance of an aerial photo. The proposed area would be added to the 1st Councilmanic District if approved. John Byorni noted that both the staff and the Area Plan Commission gave favorable recommendations with regard to Substitute Bill No. 65-98 addressing the annexation and rezoning of the proposed site. Upon questioning by the Council Attorney, it was noted that the developer, Kenny Kent would be present at the 7:00 p.m. Council meeting to provide further detail and respond to questions. Doug Carpender, Citizen Member, then made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Pfeifer that Substitute Bill No. 65-98 be recommended favorably to Council. The motion passed. Councilmember Hosinski then called upon Mr. Magliozzi to review Substitute Res. No. 98-144 (attached) which addresses the written Fiscal Plan and Policy for the proposed annexed area commonly known as the Herrman & Goetz Annexation. Mr. Magliozzi showed aerial photos of the proposed area. and noted that it meets the state law requirements for a non-contiguous annexation. The area in question encompasses 62.53 acres and he reviewed detail from the Fiscal Plan. Councilmember Sniadecki then joined the Committee meeting. John Byorni noted that both the staff and the Area Plan Commission gave unfavorable recommendations with regard to Substitute Bill No. 66-98 addressing the annexation and rezoning of the proposed site. Mr. John Peddycord, the attorney for the Petitioner, then made a presentation. He noted that the area had been M-Manufacturing since the 1960's. He further noted that the Kernan Administration asked that his client Herrman & Goetz move their vehicles to this site, which was done. He noted that there are no roads to the mining site and that there are no governmental records for this area. He noted that mining would be an indirect use with "D" light industrial being the primary use for the majority of the property in question. He also noted that Mr.Herrman has agreed to continue the mining operation, that it would be limited only to his company's needs,and that it would not have standing water. All of