02/24/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Gleaves believed the Council decision - if approval of Phase 2 was denied - should: be based on rationale of the South Hills study. Mr. Gleaves answered not, because he believed the 1990 Plan assured a full range of urban services to this particular property and the resolution adopting the South Hills study e as a refinement couldn't be separated from the intent of the Plan. Still in answer to Councilman Bradley, Mr. Gleaves said he believed the construction of Resolution 2295 (adopting the study) a legal issue, that it ultimately would be based on factual evidence and he thought the evidence was sufficient to show there was no rational basis for denial. Ppblic hearing was closed, there being no further testimony. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Hamel that the Council reverse the January 13, 1975 decision of the Planning Commission and include in its findings those set out in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of the December 17, 1974 and January 13, 1975 meetings but not limited to those findings; to find also that the property does fall under the 1990 General Plan and that it does fall within the urban service boundary as defined in that Plan, also within the South Hills s,tudy relative to planned unit development in that area. (2187) Councilman Bradley thought the matter should be continued at least 30 or 60 days to give opportunity to take judicial note of some of the material presented. Also, analysis of some of the material, particularly Resolution 2295 adopting the South Hills study, had not been made to the extent that would allow a proper decision at this time. He suggested someone might be appointed to review the material and make a factual report to the Council, or make up a judicial panel from Council members to review the material. Mr. Bradley moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to continue the issue tQ the second meeting in March (24th). e Councilman Williams wondered whether action on a PUD appeal contrary to that of the Planning Commission would automatically refer the matter to a joint meeting of the Council and Commission as in zoning matters. Mr. Long [attorney] said it would not be automatic, but on motion could be referred to a joint meeting. And such a motion would be debatable. Mr. Bradley moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to amend the motion to continue the issue to the first meeting in April (14th). Mr. Bradley explained the change was to accommodate those Council members who would probably not be in town the last part of March because of spring vacation. Councilman Williams opposed postponement, saying exhaustive information had been received by the Council, lengthy testimony had been heard, and he thought action should be taken now on the main thrust of the issue. He said any refinements needed could be made later. Vote was taken on the amended motion; Motion defeated, Council members Beal, Bradley, and Shirey voting aye' Council members Murray, Keller, Williams, Hamel, and Haws voting no. Manager noted list of eleven conditions from the December 10 Commission motion, ~, and three additional from the December 17 Commission motion which should be .., considered. 2/24/75 12 Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to include the conditions listed in both the December 10 and 17, 1974 Planning Commission staff notes and minutes as part of the approval of Phase 2 Southridge development. 80