Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> , <br />Mr. Saul said Council had received synopses at varying points along <br />the line as to how the decision had come about, noting the Blayney . <br />report in July 1976. He said an analysis was available of why <br />some areas were recommended for rezoning and why others were not. <br />The Planning Commission had held hearings after receiving the <br />Blayney report, made certain modifications, and had come to the <br />conclusion a mixed-use zoning was appropriate. The final action <br />by the Planning Commission deleted certain areas and a synopsis <br />can be prepared as to why that occurred. He said Council had been <br />given all the Planning Commission minutes on the question of mixed-use <br />zoning that began in July 1977. Council had previously received <br />minutes of prior Planning Commission hearings on R-4 zoning, noting it <br />was an 80- to 90-page document, but could be supplied if Council so <br />wished. In regard to starting the process allover again, Mr. Saul <br />said that was an option open to City Council. He noted the Planning <br />Commission had been dealing with this problem since July and August <br />1976 and it would be nice to get something resolved. <br />Mr. Lieuallen said, as he recalled from October 10 meeting, City <br />Attorney had advised the hearing had to be open to all persons <br />and that might prolong the meeting. Mr. Long said that provision <br />of the Code requires holding of a public hearing and giving notice <br />to all interested persons on the entire matter. Mr. Obie wondered <br />if the ordinance required just a joint meeting between Planning <br />Commission and Councilor a joint meeting and public hearing. Jim <br />Saul read from Code, which stated all persons interested be given <br />notice and be invited to attend and testify. e <br />In response to a question from Mayor Keller, City Attorney replied <br />the zoning question would be treated as a package, and if Council <br />takes ~ action contrary in any way, it requires a joint meeting <br />and public testimony must be taken. Mr. Haws and Obie suggested <br />staff research and prepare suggested changes in that portion of the <br />Code to allow Council some options. <br />Mr. Delay recognized Council as facing the problem of a joint <br />meeting, noting he was not sure that is a problem. He felt <br />it only appropriate for a joint Planning Commission and City <br />Council meeting to take a hard look at the decision being debated, <br />noting the Planning Commission and staff had spent considerable <br />time in researching, studying, and holding public hearings on <br />this item. He was not sure Council should be in a position to <br />make changes on staff and Planning Commission's decisions without <br />discussing such changes in a joint meeting. <br />Mr. Lieuallen supported Mr. Delay.s remarks. He said the rationale <br />for opening up the hearing again was that two property owners were <br />not given the same consideration as other property owners in the area <br />had received. He said he had never gotten that impression from <br />reading the minutes and staff notes. He said it had been a very <br /> e <br /> 10/12/77--2 <br /> 11~ <br />