|
<br /> The Chair ruled the motion appropriate, that it constituted tentative indication on not
<br /> agreeing with the Commission, that discussion with the Commission was recommended prior
<br /> to final Council decision. In making the ruling, Mr. Williams said he felt it the more
<br /> appropriate motion, stating the purpose of the action clearly, rather than having a
<br />- motion to approve something than having to vote against it with some question with
<br /> regard to what would happen next. In response to Mr. McDonald, he said that a vote in
<br /> favor of the motion would indicate a preliminary decision that,enough questions were
<br /> raised to warrant further discussion with the Commission and that it was not formal
<br /> final action requiring findings.
<br />(1493) Councilman Murray said he would vote against the motion. ~He said he did not challenge
<br /> the ,sincerity or the intent of the proposal but it seemed to him that to allow this
<br /> rezoning would encourage, some uses which in the long run would be incompatible and
<br /> which would be something less than quality living. He thought there was a responsibility
<br /> to consider it in a broader sense and to rethink the General Plan recommendations with
<br /> regard to that area. And he sensed, he said, interest and commitment on the part of
<br /> the Commission and staff to do that.
<br />,
<br /> Councilwoman Campbell said she would also vote against'the motion, and added that she
<br /> thought it should have stated direct denial or acceptance of the appeal rather than
<br /> referral.
<br /> Councilman Williams recognized the dilemma but commented that it was the type of issue
<br /> which would'continue to be faced by every governmental entity dealing with housing
<br /> questions in the future. He noted a review of mobile home use recently completed by
<br />- the Joint Housing Committee in which it was found that mobile homes would supply a
<br /> su~stantial portion of housing in the city in the near future. And although it wasn't
<br /> the best type of housing that could be produced, when Qetter housing was not provided
<br /> there was little choice but to let other types of housing occur. He thought this
<br /> proposed development fit that category and that to deny it was not saying there' would
<br /> be better hous~g but was saying there, would be no housing.
<br /> Assistant City Attorney Long noted that under the Fasano ruling a, hearing body was
<br /> entitled to take official notice of all public records and that was the case in noting
<br /> records of the Joint Housing Committee.
<br /> Councilman Keller said he would ,vote against the motion on the basis that it would do
<br /> nothing more than to repeat the same testimony heard already in several hearings. Also,
<br /> he had a difficult time seeing this as a proper place for 'housing which, if approved,
<br /> in time would be "raising havoc" with the existing gravel operation.
<br />( 15 36 ) Vote was taken on the motion to refer the appeal to a joint mee.ting of "the-'
<br /> Council and Planning Commission. Motion defeated, Council members Williams,
<br /> Hershner, and Beal voting aye; McDonald, Ca~pbell, Keller, and Murray voting no.
<br /> Mrs . Campbell mov.ed ,s.econded by Mr. McDonald! to uphold the Planning Commission
<br />f. and deny the 'appeal and direct the staff to prepare findings for adoption at a later
<br /> meeting supporting the genial. Motion carri,ed, Council members McDonald, Campbell ,
<br /> Keller, and Murray voting aye; Williams, Hershner, and Beal voting no.
<br /> Short recess was taken.
<br />(1562) B. Nelson Plat ,Assessment (73-30)
<br /> Council Bill No. 543 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers
<br /> within Nelson Plat, and sanitary sewer in area between 450
<br /> feet west and 1000 feet west of Bertelsen Road from 11th Avenue to 1000 feet south,
<br /> was read the first time on May 6, 1974 and referred,to Assessment Panel for hearing
<br /> on May 13, 1974; brought back on May 20,1974 for consideration of Panel recommen-
<br /> dation to levy assessments as proposed and held pending reopening of hearing at
<br /> 'request of property owner; hearing was reopened on July 8, 1974, the bill was read
<br /> the second time, and held until this meeting - now brought back for consideration.
<br /> " .
<br /> Don Allen, Public Works Director, explained that.discussion with Mr. Nelson and his attorney,
<br /> Herman Hendershott, r~vol ved around the affidavit submitted by the attorney claiming errors
<br /> in the assessment., Public Works Department maintained the posi~ion that errors were not
<br /> made and appellant'accepted that position on thre,y of four point's ,contested. With-regard to
<br />.' the fourth, he ,said, Mr. Hendershott was to have c~ntacted Public Works by July 19 if he
<br /> still disagreed. However, there was no contact although he did agree that the item could
<br /> be entered on the agenda for this meeting. Public Works still recommended approval of the
<br /> assessment as originally levied:
<br /> Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that 'the ,q~11>:?!i' apP"ro\ied:a.!ld~ giv~n.fiual
<br /> passage.
<br /> 7/22/74 - 5
<br /> .
<br /> 2.~o
<br />
|