|
<br /> "'llI
<br />e 70,2
<br /> 9/27/71
<br />I I
<br /> I Councilwoman Beal suggested that the ordinance and resolution be passed separately. I
<br /> I
<br /> II Mayor Anderson said he was sorry that there was a need for such legislation, and
<br /> Ii assured citizens that their rights would not be violated and that they would have :i
<br /> '1
<br /> !I an opportunity to come before the Council. He ,said this legislation was not the !I
<br /> result of any single event, but of many disturbances and distractive behavior. II
<br /> 11
<br /> ;i II
<br /> A short break was taken. ;1
<br /> II II
<br /> Mr. Teague suggested that the ordinance be read with deletion of the words- II
<br /> \1 "
<br /> "intentionally" and "in a substantial manner." :1
<br /> Ii 'I
<br /> i'
<br /> City Manager suggested it might be desirable to add meetings of Planning Commission ,I
<br /> II and other official city bodies in official meetings. 'I
<br /> , II
<br /> I' I'
<br />e 11 Mayor Anderson suggested that this be discussed at a later time. It might be possible i\
<br /> 'I
<br /> II to establish bet~er identification.
<br /> " il
<br /> I;
<br /> il Mrs. Beal felt there was substantial agreement on the part of the Council regarding the II
<br /> I'
<br /> '( resolution and suggested action be taken on the resolution, leaving the Council II
<br /> II protected under state law until an ordinance could be drafted which met with Council 'jl
<br /> II approval. II
<br />I il Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. Mohr that the bill be read the second time by council ;1
<br /> II
<br /> bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, with the suggested deletions,
<br /> [I and that enactment be considered at this time. All voted aye except Mrs. Beal who \
<br /> il I
<br /> 11 voted no. The bill will be held over to the next Council meeting.
<br /> ,
<br /> I
<br /> II City Manager called attention to the omission of Sections from Paragraph 3 of the !,
<br /> ;1 final draft of the resolution, and said these had been inadvertently omitted from the :1
<br /> " il
<br /> '1 last draft. Items Band C c under Subparagraph A should be included.
<br /> II I.
<br /> " 'I
<br /> II ~ I
<br /> II Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. Mohr that Resolution ili971 be adopted, with the II
<br /> II
<br /> Ii inclusion of Items Band C under Subparagraph A. Motion carried unanimously.
<br /> :1
<br /> Ii
<br /> Ii ,.
<br /> "
<br /> Mr. Hershner was excused from the meeting. !I
<br /> .1
<br /> " ;1
<br /> I.
<br /> I' B. Items Referred Back to Joint Meeting with Planning Commission "
<br /> ,
<br /> II 1. Zone Change, Roger Bourland, from R-3 to C-2 (Recommended Denial) I
<br /> 1\ ,I
<br /> 1
<br /> II At a joint meeting, the Planning Commission and City Council considered the zone il
<br /> II change request of Roger Bourland to allow conversion of an existing warehouse to
<br /> II a print shop. Planning Commision had recommended denial of this request, and at !I
<br /> II this meeting affirmed the denial. Council has received copies of material pre-
<br /> iI ',\
<br /> I, pared by Mr. Neil Jongeward, representative of the petitioner. I'
<br />I il 11
<br /> II Mr. Neil Jongeward, 2837 Morgan Court, read the report which had been submittee
<br /> !1 to the Council and reiterated comments made at previous meetings. He said it II
<br /> Ii was their opinion the PlanB~ng Commission had erred in denial of this applica- il
<br /> I tion, and that this property had been overlooked when the area was zoned in !I
<br /> II
<br /> "
<br /> if 1948.
<br /> 'I
<br /> II j!
<br /> 'I In answer to Councilman Mohr, the City Manager said that, since adjacent properties
<br /> ]1 I
<br /> 'I were zoned similarly to the request, it was the opinion of staff that this would I
<br />e 11 I
<br /> .' not be considered spot zoning. As iJIar as Mr. Jongeward's contention that this ,
<br /> .' 'I
<br /> II property was overlooked when the area was zoned in 1948, there was no information :1
<br /> ,:
<br /> I; to indicate whether this was or was not an oversight. This is an assumption "
<br /> i' II
<br /> Ii on the part of the petitioner. !I
<br /> I', "
<br /> !I II
<br /> i: Planning Director pointed out that this had been a non-conforming use of this "
<br /> I' "
<br /> I; property since rezoning was ,accomplished in 1948, and for that reason, the il
<br /> I'
<br /> ,I business would have to be eliminated at a future date.
<br /> II "
<br /> II
<br /> 'I II
<br /> II Mrs. Beal felt there was no possible use for the building, as it now stands, ,
<br /> Ii ;1
<br /> 'I except as a warehouse. The only other use of the prop~rty would be residential, 'I
<br /> I; I
<br /> If and there was no room for parking or landscaping. She felt allowance of this "
<br /> I' use might upgrade the neighborhood. I,
<br /> ,I :i
<br /> ,;
<br /> (I There was further discussion of this nonconforming, use, and whether or not the
<br /> il
<br />I il property had been overlooked.
<br /> il Mr. Teague moved that Planning Commission denial of this request be upheld. The
<br /> I, motion died for lack of a second. :1
<br /> Ii
<br /> \1 ,
<br /> I
<br /> Ii Mohr that the zone be changed to C-2 Community i\
<br /> d Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr.
<br /> II
<br /> " Commercial. Motion carried. Mr. Gribskov abstained from voting on this item.
<br /> , II
<br /> :
<br /> " 2. Zone Change, Fred R. Herbst, from R-l to R-2SR (Recommended approval)
<br />e , ,
<br /> ,
<br /> "
<br /> 9/27/71 - 3
<br /> .111I
<br />
|