02/23/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-- --~._-- the relatively small size of the parcel. The subject application was filed, he said, in an attempt to meet all requirements that would allow development of the property. No ex parte contacts or reasons for conflict of interest were declared by Council members other than Councilman Bradle~who noted his attendance at a meeting of the Friendly Area neighborhood association, where this issue was dis- cussed. He said he did not know that it was scheduled for discussion at that time and although a tentative vote was taken, he did not participate, and he did not feel his participation in the deliberations at this time was jeopardized. There was no challenge from either the Councilor public in attendance, and it was understood ~is participation in the discussion and voting was accepted. - Councilman Williams, stating it was not his intent to challenge Mr. Bradley's taking part, thought there should be some general ground rules for Council members in like. situations. He felt there should be some agreed-upon procedure in advance of these discussions to determine what information could be received by Council members without jeopardizing their right to vote. The Chair agreed and asked the Manager to prepare some type of ground rules for discussion at a future committee-of-the-whole meeting. Copies of Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of January 6, 1976 were received and made a part of the record by reference thereto. Public hearing was opened. Ed O'Reilly, 1358 Oak Street, spoke in favor of the zone change. He pointed out the difficulty of showing the need for the change, one of the concerns expressed by the Commission in its consideration of the request, since the C-l zone on the tit east half of the property and accompanying transitional use on the west half have been in existence for some twenty or more years. He noted that the planning staff was of the opinion that the showing of need had been met. He felt a need could more easily be shown if a complete change of zone was requested rather than the split as exists on this property. With regard to whether the requested change was in compliance with the General Plan, Mr. O'Reilly noted the need for specific provisions for neighborhood commercial areas in the Plan. Generally, the Plan calls for neighborhood commercial uses to be designed around a supermarket in an area of four to twelve acres, he said. Yet in comparison to some existing neigh- borhood centers, that is not the case. He felt this area could be developed as a neighborhood center in the sense of serving as a source for staple goods and daily services to a local area. Mr. O'Reilly continued that he thought the Commission's concerns revolved around a misconception of the scope of provisions of the 1990 Plan - what constituted neighborhood commercial areas and whether this property would develop to fit those provisions. He felt this resulted in an appeal which left it to the Council to determine that the ruling made by the Commission was based on a misconception of what was intended at the time the 1990 Plan was adopted. Also, the Council would have to determine what was encompassed in "neighborhood commercial" as set out in the Plan and whether the applicant has established the necessary proof under existing Fasano requirements. He said the Council also should consider the change is for rezoning a property, half of which is already C-l; it is not a complete change from residential to commercial uses. He said if the Council determined that neighborhood commercial applies only to substantial acreages with ~ many businesses involved, then the existence of truly neighborhood centers would .., be terminated. The Commission's decision, he said, was in error, based on fact and on law, and should be reversed. 2/23/76 - 2 I~~' ,.'1t' .,