08/27/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I Attorney Vern Gleaves raised a point of order, saying it was his understanding the public hearing was closed and no action was taken other than to table the issue. He said the applicant would object if the Council were going to seriously consider the Commission's statement, since the burden of proof rests with the applicant. tit He said the letter itself does not completely and accurately reflect what transpired = at the Planning Commission meeting, and if the question of referral is to be discussed the applicant has the right to be heard. Mayor Anderson_noted the point well taken and explained the quest~on before the Council is wh~!her the exhibits presented at the August 13 hearing should be evaluated by the Planning staff. He said the staff is being asked for additional information as to the merits of those exhibits. That ruling was confirmed by the City Attorney. . Councilman Williams sald he preferred proceeding with a decision on the matter rather than deferring for an opportunity for further staff evaluation. He felt the Council had received extensive testimony on the issue and had adequate information on which to base a decision. He sympathized with. the Commission's feeling that they should in fact be a referral agency which has detailed information prior to making a recommendation. Although he didn't support re-referral and didn't wish to reduce the Commission's role, he said it would seem an applicant for any zone change in looking at past Commission recommendations, General Plan indications for the area, at.tit. ude of neighbors, etc., I could conclude whether a reasonably accurate presentation,could.be,made. Then if Planning Commission action were contrary to what was requested, it would seem wise for an applicant to make the strongest possible case when the issue came before the Council. ~= He felt if a requirement of any zone change were that the exact testimony be presented .tIt to both bodies, the process would be slowed down considerably. He felt that making ~ a decision at this time on this request would do no damage to the Planning Commission's position but would most expeditiously resolve the issue. Councilman Murray disagreed, saying a rather serious breach in the processes involving the Commission and Council had occurred. However, he was in favor of proceeding with a decision at this time because he felt there was adequate information available and that further delay at this point would not be profitable to the City. Councilwoman Campbell advised she would abstain from voting, not because she wanted to but because of attendance at a Planning Commission hearing on the issue and the decis~on in the Fasano case requiring that Council members have no information on a zone change before it is heard by members as a body. Councilman McDonald said he-felt strongly a decision should be reached at this time. He said this was not the first instance where the Council had additional testimony after Planning Commission hearings had been.held. Councilwoman Beal said she was impressed with the presentation made and that she had __.no reason to think that any of it was not strictly reliable. However, she thought a __ '~'different interpretation might be gathered by those in the advisory capacity and that tit their experience and guidance should be used to the fullest extent. She referred to ~ Mr. Odell's statements with regard to the effect of the proposed additional commercial use on air pollution and said she had learned as a member of the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority that the tests were estimates and did not satisfy the DEQ. She I said she would rather have the judgment of the Planning Staff in light of the evidence presented at this hearing. Councilmen Wood and Hershner favored proceeding with a decision at this time. Mr. Wood was satisfied any issue coming to the Council after hearing by the Commission would . be presented with different information and explored to greater depth. Mr. Hershner recognized the current period of rapid change in zoning laws as evidenced by the Fasano decision and statutes passed by the Legislature. However, he felt there had been considerable evidence presented and that it would be wrong to penalize one party be- cause ofa procedural concern. He suggested that if there is concern about new evidence being presented to the Council, then there should be review of the ordinances with the idea of prohibiting introduction of new evidence to the Council after a hearing before the Commission. Councilman Keller thought the Council was in a position to vote on the request. He felt it would be a grave er~pr to limit evidence being presented to the Council, since ~ any petitioner receiving negative recommendation from the Commission would be inclined ..,: to present a stronger case to the Council. ~ Mrs. Beal agreed with the points raised and recognized that the petitioner in present- ing evidence to the Council was attempting to answer concerns raised in the Commission hearing. She wondered what action the Council would take if evepy piece of evidence presented at this hearing were to be judged by the Planning staff and the Commission. She felt that evaluation important in the sense that this rezoning request could then be judged in the light of planning for the community as a whole. ~~I 8/27/73 - 4