02/09/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e - I-A-4 through I-B e (1) it was contrary to the compact urban growth policy, (2) the Commission felt duplexes would not have twice the demand on public services or twice the impact on a neighborhood that two single-family residences would have, and (3) because of the limited number of interior lots existing in the city on which duplexes possibly could be constructed. He pointed out the detailed discussion contained in staff notes covering the issue. Mayor Anderson called for vote on the amendment, but Councilman Bradley called for a point of order. He wondered if the bill could be amended on second read- ing. Stan Long, assistant city attorney, saw no problem, saying his recol- lection was that such a motion had already been defeated, so the Chair could rule this a motion to reconsider previous action. However, he noted that a motion to reconsider could not be made by one voting on the loosing side. The Chair ruled the motion out of order, since Mrs. Shirey had previously voted "aye" when the motion was defeated. Mr. Bradley moved second by Mrs. Beal to amend the council bill, requiring a minimum of 10,000 square feet for duplex construction on interior lots lying between two corner lots. In response to Councilman Williams, Mr. Long said a two-thirds majority would be required if the action was being taken in committee-of-the-whole session. However, since this was a formal Council session, a simple majority would suffice. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried - all Council members present voting aye, except Councilman Williams voting no. Mr. Haws moved second by Mrs. Beal that the council bill as amended be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, except Councilman Williams voting no, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17522. Councilwoman Beal questioned the procedure - she wondered how the council bill could be amended and passed on second reading only. Mr. Long explained that under the rules, the Council was fre~ at any time to make amendments. If the converse were true, he said, every time an amendment was proposed there would be the necessity for readvertising, hearings, etc., and the Council had never done that. Council President Keller recognized the people who had spoken in public hearing on this issue and expressed the Council's appreciation for their attending to express their opinions. B. Appeals 1. Planning Commission denial of zone change from R-2 to RP on area at southwest corner of 11th and Polk (Hayden)(Z 75-6) Planning Commission denied the request on December 2, 1975 and appeal was filed by the applicant in accordance with code requirements. Jim Saul, planner, noted the hearing on this appeal had been postponed from the January 26 Council meeting at the request of the appellant, and further ex- plained that the zone change was requested on a 5900-square-foot lot now de- veloped with a duplex to allow development of a dental clinic. Council President Keller called for ex parte contacts or other conflicts. Councilman Murray responded to a request for his disqualification because his wife, acting as an officer of the Westside Neighborhood Quality Project, had fo5 2/9/76 - 3