|
<br /> ~-
<br /> -- Mr:' Murray mo~ed seconded by Mrs. Campbell to propose an amendment which
<br /> would delete Item b of the Findings of Fact and substitute as follows:
<br /> "Subj ect ',p~oper'ty if developed at a medium density would be consistent
<br />.. with the 1990 Plan because it would contribute to an urban growth form."
<br /> Mrs. Campbell felt the area was definitely indicated as low density. She also voice the
<br /> hope that the developer would keep the access open from Sladden Park to the river and
<br /> maintain the tree-lined area around the river.
<br /> Itowas pointed out that final action could not be taken at this time since the PUD must
<br /> first be approved. There will be further public hearings, so ample opportunity will be
<br /> provided for input as to preservation of the park areas, etc.
<br /> ..
<br /> In answer to a question regarding the intent of Mr. Murray's amendment, Mr. Williams said
<br /> he did not feel that Mr. Murray's amendment was in conflict with the motion presented.
<br /> The rezoning with the amendIDent would carry out the intent of the 1990 Plan.
<br /> Mr. Murray said he simply did not want Council to pass something that was not factual.
<br /> He was not necessarily in agreement with"his amendment but felt it more defensible.
<br /> There should be Findings of Fact that Council feels comfortable defending.
<br /> Mrs. Campbell interpreted Mr. Murray's amendment as indicating that Council does not
<br /> want to open up the whole area to medium density.
<br />e Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to restate the motion to read:
<br /> "that the council bill be read the second time by council bill number only
<br /> with unanimous consent of the Council and held for final passage when PUD
<br /> is given final approval, and that the motion include that the Suffix 3.35
<br /> indicated by applicant as acceptable be added to rezoning and that the Findings
<br /> of Fact indicated in City Attorney's 9/25/74 memo be included and adopted,
<br /> with the exception that (b) would be changed to reflect Mr. Murray's amendment
<br /> and read, 'if developed at medium density it would be consistent with 1990 Plan
<br /> because it would contribute to an Urban Growth form'''. Rollcall vote. Motion
<br /> carried unanimously, all Council members present voting aye. and the bill was
<br /> read the second time by council bill number only.
<br /> Mr. Murray stated, for the record, that he favors development of that site and expressed
<br /> confidence in the developer. He expressed being uncomfortable with the fact that the
<br /> only defense he had heard for rezoning the area was that there is a need for an increase
<br /> because there is a need for more housing. He wondered if that type of thinking could
<br /> in the future cause the general feeling 'that any increased zoning is all right because
<br /> it serves the public need by providing more housing.
<br /> ,:,\ -
<br /> Mr. Williams responded by saying ~e did not think ~hat the findings indicated that any
<br /> time a person wan~ed to increase densities the Council would automatically' approve it
<br /> because of the need for housing. Having increased density closer to the core of the
<br />- community is desirable under the 1990 Plan and that was definitely a consideration on
<br /> this particular issue.
<br /> <. .
<br /> II - Items taken with one motion after discussion of individual items if requested.
<br /> Previously discussed in committee meeting on September 25., 1974 (Present: Mayor
<br /> Anderson; Council members Williams, Hershner_, Beal, Campbell, Keller, Murray and
<br /> Wood) and October 2, 1974 (Present: Mayor Anderson; ,Council mernBe:f~s Williams,
<br /> . Hershner, Beal, Campbell, Keller, Murray and Wood). Minutes for thos~ meetings
<br /> printed below in italics. , ,"
<br /> l. ~
<br /> A. /Room Tax Allocation Recommendations - September 12, 1974 - Copies of r~port from the:
<br /> (Allocation Committee and minutes of its September 12 meeting Were previously diso:-
<br /> :tributed to Council member!!.~/.--- ""'_':'~_'~____'_______"___('_""'-"'---"'-'--"-"'--'- ..0...... . .,....
<br /> 1.EBAA - Requested $23,649. Recommended - $13,60~' . -~
<br /> Ralph Myers, di~ector ot EBAA, asked for approval of the full amount requ~
<br /> so that EBAA would not have to conduct a special fund raising campaign in order to \
<br /> istart the youth sports program tor girls. He explained that the Allocation Com- \
<br /> ,mittee recommendation for a lesser amount was made on the basis that the full amount \
<br /> : would appropriate tOo much of the Ro~m Tax funds designated for recreational purposeso\
<br /> 'He said that funds which the EBAA does have were earmarked for emergency purposes,
<br /> . and EBAA did not think it wise to borrow funds at current high interest rates. The \
<br />-- ;Association would like to start the girls program on a basis equal to the boys pro-
<br /> ; gram which would mean purchasing uniforms, equipment, etc., on the same standards. I
<br /> l
<br /> i
<br /> :Judge Edwin Allen, chairman of the EBAA committee appointed to initiate the girls
<br /> :program, described the present EBAA program and the time it had taken to build the
<br /> . organization. A si~ilar program for girls was long overdue, he said, and the ,
<br /> 'Association did not have sufficient funds to start a program on an equal footing ,
<br /> ,with the boys program. He said the allocation was requested to initiate the program
<br /> only; continuinlJ. oPJ!.D3.t.imLW-OJJJ,d._be..:...CJ.J;;_c;gmJ>.1ished wi th EBAA funds. ~-_'-o-j /
<br /> -,'.. .--.--- - n:- --,.':-.~..- -- . ,'" . I <~'':':.-,~' - -;-. '~;___.-:;'_~d~'____~--"-",-",__~~~,,,- __...~~......._.~___._~~'~_. ~.-
<br /> . '.' ,~ , .. -'" .' .....~'/. . . ( . l. ,
<br /> ---,'. ',' -'.-- 10/7/74 - '"3
<br /> 34'0
<br />
|