03/11/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. appropriate if the statement in that regard appeared as a part of Item G itself. He felt, however, that adoption of those three items might have.a substantial effect on overall trans- portation studies in the area. He said he had no facts on which t~ base a decision with regard to access to the valley from ~Spring Boulevard. Councilwoman Beal said it seemed unlikely access from Spring Boulevard could be effected unless it was a part of an overall transportation plan. . She called attention too to the vote required by Charter amendment on any limited 'access route which she said would seem to provide adequate safeguards. Mrs. Beal expressed her feeling that it seemed an im- portant function of'city government to enable people who had bought property under certain conditions to pr~serve so far as possible those conditions and to make it a place where they wanted to'live. She agreed that certain portions of the Plan'needed rewriting and thought members of the Association after this discusslonshould be convinced'of the Council's good will and 'desire to do what the Laurel Hill people wanted. 1909 Councilman Wood said he thought the Plan was a very responsible dQcument but he favored de- lay in its adoption, saying perhaps a Council subcommittee could work out with representa- tives of t~e Association amendments to cover those items discussed. Councilman Murray didn't disagree but he thought it might be w~ll to speak to major concerns with'the Plan while so many of the'Laurel Hill people were present. He .thought'it important that in separating policy statements from other'statements in the Plan the Council should recog- nize the other statements were not insignificant - they were part and parcel of context from which policies would grow. Also, he said, the Laurel Hill people did not really de- sign the format of this Plan itself; it was suggested by the Planning Commission, one of. the main reasons being to keep it consistent with other planning documents, such as the Generai Plan and Community Goals, and allowed for statement of items which were not specifically policy but more all-encompassing, long-range plans or desirable goals. While it might be confusing to some, he said, it was compatible ~ith what had already been done and explained why the Plan included those statements as part of ~hat would be adopted. , Councilwoman Campbell asked that other Council members keep in mind that a lot of the policy statements set out in the Plan were also being incorporated into the South Hills study. She hoped the Council would not be put in the position of not being able to accept the larger study because of not knowing clearly what was being accep~ed with this Plan. 1940 Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to refer the Plan to.a Council subcommittee to be appointed by the Mayor for consideration of testimony presented at this meeting, comments made re~ative to language modification~ to make a more desirable or acceptable plan from all points of view, and bring the document back to the Council for final consideration. . Councilman Murray said in previous instances when Council was faced with language modifica- tions the staff was asked to make changes and bring back recommendations. He wondered if that would be a better process than having a Council subcommittee work it out. . Councilman Wood asked the opinion of representatives of the Laurel Hill Association on the procedure under discussion. Mr. McGuinness answered that the Association's committee it- self could not make any changes; every word in every revision of the Plan had been voted ,upon by the entire group. So what was suggested would be time-consuming and he would pre- fer Councilman Murray's suggestion - that staff bring back to the Council suggested changes. He felt subcommittee consideration would be putting a side force into action. Councilman Williams said there was no intent to bring a side force into action, rather he felt action taken now at the late hour and in so large a group would not lend itself to productiveness. Whereas, cutting~it down to representatives of " both bodies would give an opportunity to be genuinely productive. Mayor Anderson suggested the planning staff could take the' record of this meeting and work out language that would be satisfactory to both the Association and the subcommittee and probably a half-hour's review would produce recommendations for the Council to consider. Councilman Hershner said he would rather see any substantive changes in the Plan dealth with by a Council subcommittee than staff. Manager added there were at least two items which would require Council policy decisions, but the staff could possibly suggest alterna- tive wordings from which the Council could select what was desired. .. It' ., , Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, Councilmen Williams, Hershner, Beal, Keller, and Wood voting aye; Councilmen Campbell and Murray voting no. 1988 E. .Sign District Change -,From Residential to Outlying Commercial on area west of Delta Highway and north of relocated Goodpasture Island Road (Planning Commission 5DBC74-1) Planning Commission recommended on February 5, 1974. Scheduled for public hearing at March 11, 1974 Council meeting. Comm 2/27/74 Pub Hrng 7b 3/11/74 - 9