The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Report - February 17, 1982 (46)L ry ptip r.cr '� J i}�za3'kx..'�,$.4�--�"� ""'1Lu. ,'y`@'x'�`,�y„ r�• ��:� r _ - �Y } ((�y Y' XIt • MEETING 4�J' n FebruAry,X7,0 1982 PUBLIC HEARINGS Notice thereof having been published in accordance with law and affidavit of publication being on file APPEAL OF JACK L. in the office of the City Clerk, Mayor McCarty GILLILAND, M.D. called for the Public hearing to consider the 900 S. FAIRMONT appeal of Jack L. Gilliland, M.D., 900 S. Fairmont AVENUE, LODI RE Avenue, Lodi of the Planning Commission's denial of REZONING OF 1001 his request to rezone the parcel at 1001 Windsor WINDSOR DRIVE, Drive, Lodi (Assessor's Parcel No. 031-103-21) from LODI FROM R-1 R-1, Single -Family Residential, to R -C -P, Residential TO R -C -P CONTINUED Commercial -Professional. Mrs. Lloyd Brosnikof, f , 901 Windsor Drive, Lodi and Mr. Dick Wilcos, 1007 S. Orange, Lodi addressed the Council asking that the matter be continued as they felt they had not received adequate notice of this meeting and therefore were not prepared. City Attorney Stein and City Clerk Reimche indicated that the legal requirements of public notice had been met with a legal publication regarding the Public Hearing appearing in the Lodi News Sentinel on January 23, 1982. Following discussion with questions being directed to Staff, Council, on motion of Councilman Katnich, Murphy second continued the hearing to the regular Council meeting of March 17, 1982. A q pl { L t J E r t _r 4 c ,R�' - •F.'-1' .G.. �K •t:fir h i iS l� 1 yy, �'t •. a Jan Asry 11, 1982 To: Lodi, -City Council From: Del Caynood,'921 Windsor Drive, Lodi, Ca. 95240 Subject: The rezoning of property at 1001 Windsor Drive from R1 to C.P. or R.C.P. I write to continue my protest of the rezoning of this property. However. I do want to interject a new thought that could be more pertinent to the subject rezoning than all of the other pros and cons. My wife and I like to play Twilite Golf during the summertime. My wife cannot play golf if the heat is too intense. Inorder for us to know if we can play I have become a thermometer watcher. I have a total of eight thermometers scattered around but three are pertinent to the subject. I have a thermometer outside of our kitchen window. This thermometer is in the sun. I have a thermometer outside of our bedroom window'. -!This- thermometer is in the shade and open to some breeze. A third thermo— meter is in a tree in our front yard. This tree is surrounded by grass and open to any breeze. Due to the above reasons i have a record -of the temperature variables of these three therometers. These reading were often used to guide u -s with our golf decisions. I feel the City Council may be making zoning decisions based on a faulty Environmental Impact Report. At present there are no heat producing elements at the subject property. The subject rezoning will remove over 6000 square feet of open lawn. This lawn and house area will be replaced by over 16,000 square feet of heat absorbing paving. To this you can add the heat absorbing. cars to be parked there. The seven foot fence, extending to the street, will further add to the potential heat factor by restricting the Air flow. Page 2 As our westerly evening breeze arrives this hot airwill.<spill over the fence directly into our bedrooms and yards.. With the exception of a few houses all hoses in thus area were constructed with the bedroom. windows facing West to capture the evening breeze. Builders and Contractors twenty to thirty years ago realized the value of this evening breeze. As the temperature builds and then spills over into our area I am sure the temperature in our area will also increase. The 0#!3hew property is the first house that will be affected. our property is second. Any increase In temperature that exceeds my records will be inteawifiod't at the 0'5hea's. In the best interest of all, you the City Council, Lodi Taxpayers. The Developers and the local Residents I ask you to consider calling for a new`cospreheiiiivo Environmental Impact Report taking Anto,_ conpiderstion- the facts- that I• have mentioned. If no . new report is issued and we do get .eosre heat and less evening breeze, then I .feel I will have a right to file for recourse and so may others. t ' P Del Lywood 921 Windsor Drive Lodi. Ca. 95240 W 9z'i<lD C;E>(E1�.,, (9:> 4 <fE> r x C 9S 25 6338 1 60 1 60 56 60 64 D S 0 R � CED (ID ® ® 270.67 68 2 70 1ZQ 63 - ,Y " VINE �- 9415 55 4948 1,61-41 191,5W _ X50 t:,,1�,� 13 -.64 01nI in 1 1f1 9325 XX9649 1 C2 ti655 110 55 .:� YORK i" 8326 7 A2 75 1 f64 14 W CIT Te- SWANSON REZONING REQUEST Z-81-6 1001 Windsor Drive AP#03 -130-21 R-1 to R -CP 9z'i<lD C;E>(E1�.,, (9:> 4 <fE> r x C 9S 25 6338 1 60 1 60 56 60 64 D S 0 R 0I in 1 1f1 9325 XX9649 1 C2 ti655 110 55 .:� YORK i" 8326 7 A2 75 1 f64 14 W CIT Te- SWANSON REZONING REQUEST Z-81-6 1001 Windsor Drive AP#03 -130-21 R-1 to R -CP t January 5, '_982 Mr. Jim Schroeder, secretary Lodi Planning Commission Lodi, California Dear Mr. Schroeder, This letter is in reference to the pudic hearing scheduled for January It and at which time Dr. Swanson's request for a zoning change at 1861 WbAsor Dr. to R -C -P will be heard. On Wednesday November 18. 1981 I made a statement to the city council on this issue. I waa a spokesman for the 48 individuals who opposed a zoning change at loot Windsor Dr, and signed a petition to that effect. I have enclosed my statement and our petition for you to share with the mem- bers of the Planning Commission. The opposition to a soning change remains the same. We were shocked that the council voted against the Planning Commissions earlier refusal to grant Dr. Swasson*s request for a soning change. I Mould safely estimate that 95 percent of those individuals who reside within 300 feet of 1001 Windsor Dr. are strongly opposed to any change in soning. We want the residential character (R-1) of all the remaining properties on York, Windsor, and Vine avid east of Fairmont to remain residential. I oannot begin to tell you how strongly we feel about this. It is our fervent wish that the Planning CCU - mission will listen to us, the people who live thzxe. We will be at the Planning Commission meeting on January 11 to be heard and seen. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. SIMMwelyt EU 'i Reid Cae.Aey Lodi City Council Attention: Councilmen McCarty, Hughes, Pinkerton, Katnich, and Murphy Dear Councilmen, This petition refers to Dr. Dennis R. Swanson's appeal to the city council to reverse the city planning commission's denial of his re- quest to amend the land use element of the General Plan by redesig- nating the parcel at 1001 Windsor Drive, Lodi, from low density res- idential to office institutional. We petition the city to deny Dr. Swanson's request to amend the land use element of the General Plan from low density residential to of - Tice institutional. We bought our homes in this neighborhood because this area had been zoned residential. over the years we have been saddened by the planning commission's and the council's ready wil- lingness to make change after change (spot zoning) from low density residential to professional commercial and now the request for of- fice institutional. We have been greatly displeased by this encroach- ment. Less than three years ago Dr. Swanson requested and was a- warded a zoning change at 1000 W. Vine Street, one block north of Windsor Dr. Parcel by Parcel and lot by lot Dr. Swanson and others are changing the residential character of our neighbdrhoods. We Atren- uously object to this piecemeal redesignating of residential land. Past decisions of the planning commission and the council have al- ready altered the residential character of Vine and Windsor Streets, east of Fairmont. We petition the city council to support the Plan- ning commission on this issue and stop further encroachment along the designated residential zones of Vine and Windsor. Enough is enough. We beg the councio listen to those who wd be effected by a- nother change in zoning. We, the undersigned,represent some of those who reside in the immediate (300 feet) residential neighborhood and who would be effected by a zoning change. We simply wish for Wind- sor and Vine streets to remain residential throughout as originally intended. We feel quite certain that those same medical and pro- fessional people who continually come before the planning commission and the council would object to any encroachment or zoning changes where they live. We are grateful to the planning commission for its decision to deny Dr. Swanson's request. We ask You - entlemenof the council, to deny his appeal. Respectfully submitted, Residents within 300 feet of 1001 Windsor Dr. NAME (signature) ADDRESS TELEPHONE 2 3 d� Al12 ii I� ice, Ago PUS; 13 (4�) NAMES (signature) c ADDRESS 16 04 ct Flo 17 20 21 0 _Q wj 21 23 24 5 27 e - .� 1 r.. Le z 0 IV, TELL; '-BONE .19 as q C7;Z IN 914 . &4�dAM%C- .`•t�_�._. 3rd -a 7? Tot./< AV a4 oe -3 28 29 �1� y��/-- 30 31 JIj 32 4 NAME (signature) ADDRESS 33_ �, �� .C�u� QAC`! �-�.c � 34 TELEPHONE % 0 v xe ci- 36 37 OLA 38 ;q p 3 40 41 42 -_9ai cJ, xea< $3`l- ?eo 310 43 .4el - — 144 44 45 46 —116 -7 le:._. 47 Ir PIP 48 oll;lll C��Pllj 49 50 November 17, 1981 I swear that all the persons who signed this petition are who they purport to be and have signed in my presence. I am the sole circulator of this petition. e_ akz*7— amid C. Carney STATE OF CALIFORNIA a SS COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN SUBSCRIBED TO AND SWORN BEFORE; ME THIS 17TH DAY OF NOVEMI$ER, 1981. WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL. tr,:�• r L NE K. VSTTSON OFFICIAL SEAL 1CMHE K MASTUMI NOr,urt woVG CALIF OSM1A My cVA m. expi � 1982 y M-1 •. _ Ferdun_and woods _ ,r Industrial Park 1 City of Lodi i City of Lodi Basin S HOUSTON PROPERTY 22 acres Rezoning Request R-1 to M-1 ti+d G. p, Co Vol �—/ /�dfa..,J> tnd Go Coun"y oil ail 91 uj V� Y J