06/10/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

with goals of the Plan, he said., and' didn't Gonstitute strip zoning because it was part of an area of community commercial facilities. Mr. Moul~9n felt the testimony presented showed a definite public need for commercial activities; -'it wouldprovid~' professional services .tomeet the needs of retirees livingadjciCent to the proposed" dev~loPInent, and would give .a choice of nearby medical facilities. He felt reference to expansion of commercial activities to the west were without basis, that each property had to be considered individually on needs of the particular area. He adde~ that a ped,estriafiJ oriented facility would seem the .mostappropriate for that area ,because of the surround- ing developments and that development under PUD procedures in conjunction with the lED development would make the best possible use of.the property and within the community commercial uses proposed by the 1990 Plan. " Public hearing was closed. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the rezoning request pe referred back to a joint meeting of the Council and Planning Commissibn for consideration of rezoning the subject property C-2 PD and/or possibility of rezoning to C-1 PD. I.' . . In making ~he motion'Councilman Williams. felt there were two major considerations . whether th~ current. zoning on the property was adequate. If it was. determined not to be, then it followed that the process for estaplishing a need to change. was star~ed. Secondly, he felt there would seem to be a public need when so mU,ch testimony from a broad range of pe9plewas' presente4 in favor of permitting community commercial acti- vities on that proper.ty. He thought it should.at least be discussed with the Planning Commission~ ' In response to Councilman Murray, Councilman Williams further explained his first consideration that if the current zone didn't appear adequate, if, it didn't properly serve th~ people, then a public need might be established. He didn't feel, that. residential zoning on that property would adequately serve the public based on the property's relationship to a high densitythpro1.igb-f~~. Councilman Murray commented that it would appear if the commercial activities proposed were to serve the largeE Bethel area in addition to existing adjacent housing developments, those people traveling from the Bethel area would~be using the same streets abutting the housing developments. Councilwoman Campbell brought upprocedurc3J. questions with regard to referral back to the PlanniI7-g Cornmission and whether discussion of proposed construction. in rezoning deliberations was appropriate under 'Fasano regulations. It .was explained that a Council decision contrary to a Commission recommendation automatically went to a joint meeting, and Councilman Williams said in this~instance because it seemed worthwhile he would like to see further discussion of the issues. Manager noted that the present zoning carried a PD suffix.,and act.uardevelopment plan was a part of the issue.. Mr.. Saul added that the PD suffix provided an.opportunity for control if particular proposals were' desired, normally a zone change concerned in a broad se~se the appropriateness of permitted uses. Councilman Wood said it didn't appear any truly new evidence had been~submitted to change the previous decision not to rezone or refer back to the Planning Commission. Stan Long said whether new evidence was presented would be matter of Council decision.. He added that the scope would be narrowed when the definition of public need was , identified as whether the public would be best served by rezoning of a particular piece of property. Councilman McDonald could see no":new"evidence in the testimony presented and could see no purpose in referring the issue to a pint meeting. Mr. Murray' agreed and felt there further ~ppeared to be confusion with regard to whether adequate com~ercial facilities were available in that area. Neither was the question of increased traffic conclus'ively dealt wIth', he said. Councilman Hershner agreed to some degree with referring to the Commission, but he thought if it was for possible pursuit of C-1 zoning then the petitioner should refile for that type of zoning. ,Vptewi3-s taken.on .the'ri16.:ti~r.t~as~.stated;. , Hot.ion defeated, Councilmen Williams and Campbell voting ,aye; Councilmen Hershner,~McDonald, Beal, Keller, Murray, and Wood voting no. There was nO further action taken, and it was understood Council's previous decision to deny the rezoning would stand. Short ne'cess was taken. 6/iO/74 - 6 .1e.1 ,.: .....-- -" (1486 ) (1494) (1.) (1526 ) (1534 ) . (1555) ....j' '" :..::::::-c'".:. A