05/20/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~.~ ~~-,-.:._.- .~ -~_.- --:::- --.-----=-- Councilman Murray asked whether previously presented testimony would be taken again. Mr.' Long answered that the Council had the right if the hearing was re- opened to limit what would occur. If the applicant was allowed to reopen testi- mony then he could be restricted to issues the Council felt worthy of looking at 'j again. For instance, the Council could limit the evidence to that on public ~ ,need only. (e~ In'response to Councilwoman Campbell's inquiry about why the evidence was not presented before by the petitioner, Mr. Long said that was one of the ques- tions on which the petitioner would comment - describe the evidence generally land say why it was not given before - to give the Council a basis for determin- ling whether to reopen the issue. \. "^, " Councilman Murray suggested postponing any lengthy debate until other regular agenda items had been considered. Councilman Wood felt lengthy debate would occur only if the matter was reopened and in that; event.?a"]jearing would be scheduled at;,~some later time. He asked what ,-rdle- the Planning Commission would play if tJj'e hearing was reopened ~ Mj3n.ilger answered that if the hearing was re- opened and resulted in a decisioncrontraryto the original Planning commission recommendation (to deny), then the matter would go back to them. Otherwise, the Planning Commission would not be involved. Mr. Moulton expressed appreciation for the expeditious handling of his'petition for reconsideration and proceeded to explain the type of evidence he would like to introduce, saying that the issue would have to go back for Planning Commission hearings, assuming the Council approved what the petitioner wanted to do with the property. He said information gi ven at this time would be limi ted to the question of public need only. If testimony in addition to that on public need was requested, that would be included. They intended to refer to the type of 'commercial activities and uses available in the vicnity, the quality and quantity -of ~ommercially zoned properties not being put to commercial use, and the types of facilities the petitioner felt were needed. As to the reason this evidence was not presented before, Mr. Moulton said he thought that although it was plluded to it was not specifically mentioned. He suggested that determination of public need in a large sense was a legal question, and he felt an attorney could better point out evidence on questions to which the Council must address ,itself in making quasi-judicial judgments. He hoped to do that with reference to public need. He asked the opportunity to present to the Council a legal memorandum with regard to the types of evidence appropriate in determination of public need, saying the motion to reopen the hearing was within the discretion of the Council. He noted the concern of the public with regard to the general area and called attention to the fact that since another petition would not be filed before a year had elapsed, other public agencies involved would have to make other plans. .. Councilman WilJ~ams ~rought to the-Council's attention his discussions with Bill Jones, superYntendent of Intermediate Education District (development immediately adjacent to the subject property) which occurred aftercthe~foriner 'decision to deny the rezoning. He said the discussions presented no particularly new information that would not be made available to other Council members and would not change his opinion or particularly influence him one way or the other. :He repeated his statement made at the time of making the motion to deny that he iwas not satisfied with that action but felt it was necessary under the circum- Istances (Fasano requirements). ! Counci 1 woman Beal and Councilman Murray reporteLcalls from Ray Bradshaw, Bethel :School District, with regard to the issue, but neither discussed the issue with him, advising him of their position in light of the Fasano ruling. e ,C6:rmn ',5/8/74 Apppove Councilman McDonald expressed the opinion that courts by virtue of decisions handed/ ldown had become legislative bodies. ,~ \" Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimouslY~~ Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood to reopen hearing on rezoning property west-'of~HJ.ghway 99N, south of Concord, east of Jacobs from RA to C-2 PD for the purpose of receiving ad~itional testimony limited to the showing of public need. C. 'Charters -; "N'elghhorhood 'brganfzation~\ \ Recogni tion, Neighborhood organizati'ons' ~ --C:opies7)f chart'i,,!rs Tor--ere'fit Drive 'cITIzeiis \ Ass~ciation, South,university Neighborh~od,Association, ,Westsid~ Neighborhood Quality i \proJect, and Oak,H21ls H~meowners,As~oc2at20n were prev20usly d2stributed to Council' members, along w2th a br2ef descr2pt20n of the process for organization and adoption fof the charters by the groups. Staff members met with spokesmen for the groups to :get some feel of the r~prese~ta~ive natu~e qf ~he p~ocess_and t;o express administra- . \b1. 5(20(74 - ..14 J