03/10/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e them before considering the zone change; indications were that if the matter was re- turned to the Planning Commission, a recommendation on it could not be back to the Council before July. Mr. Thorp identified himself as representing Clarence Brown, only one of the appli- cants party to the rezoning request and the owner of only one parcel involved - 40 acres out of the original 77 acres recommended for C-2 zoning. Also, that the request to reopen applied only to that parcel in Mr. Brown's ownership, he had no authority to represent either Smith or Howell. He reviewed the tabling action which had delayed a decision on the issue and said if tabling was continued, action could not be taken until at least July. Even then, if recommendations of the L&B report resulted in amendment to the General Plan, delay could be stretched to the end of the year or more. Mr. Thorp could see no justification for leaving the applicant "dangling" and said the Council was obligated to give an answer regard- less of whether the rezoning was granted or denied. The delay created practical and legal problems, he said, and his client was willing to permit this Council to review the record as it exists (written minutes), acknowledging complications re- sulting from the Fasano regulations. He noted that the authorization for the L&B study directed that findings be returned by July 1974 but they had not yet been considered, so whether the L&B study would have any effect either pro or con was nothing more than speculation. Withholding action of this rezoning request pending outcome of the L&B study, he said, would appear to indicate doubt about the validity of the General Plan as it exists. He requested removal of the issue from the table for decision on the rezoning at the March 10 Council meeting. Assistant Manager asked Mr. Thorp if it could be assumed that in agreeing to having the Council as now constituted render a decision based on the existing written record his arguments would be based on that record with no additional testimony. Mr. Thorp agreed that would be the case. In response to Councilman Murray, Mr. Long clarified the process for taking from the table. Only a majority vote was necessary, not a two-thirds vote of the Council. Councilman Keller asked if the decision would be made only by the four Council members and Mayor, if necessary, who were involved at the time the application was first considered, or whether the total Council would participate. Mr. Long said one of the options available was for the total Council to take part upon review of the minutes of meetings at which the rezoning issue was discussed. Councilman Williams asked whether choosing one of the options available would pre- clude the other two options, that is, if the choice was to make a decision on re- view of the record, could the Council then decide to reopen for hearing or refer to the Planning Commission. Mr. Long saw no reason why that couldn't occur. In response to Councilman Haws, Assistant Manager said if the issue was referred to the Planning Commission it would probably come back to the Council after considera- tion of the Goodpasture Island study. Councilman Williams wondered if there were any legal implications if the Council decided to make a decision on the written record from a couple of years ago on the assumption every Council member had reviewed the commercial study, but at the time of rendering the decision the Council again had before it the Commission's recom- mendations on the study even though action might already have been taken on them. Stan Long answered that it would depend probably on the option taken, there were an endless number of possibilities as to what could occur. The kind of evidence that would be presented in another full hearing before the Councilor the Planning Com- mission, if it was sent back, was a "question mark." If the record was reviewed and reopened for purpos7 of argument, a request that the Council take judicial notice of certain material might occur. In response to Assistant Manager's question whe- ther there would be legal implications in appearance of this issue on the same Council agenda March lO with consideration of the Commission's recommendation on /19 3/10/75 - 15