03/10/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the commercial study, Mr. Long said it would depend upon what participants in hear- ing at that' time would do. Councilman Murray expressed reservations about removing the issue from the table. ... He reviewed actions leading to the request for the commercial study, some very .., heated deba.tes in the Council on possibili ty of commercial uses in the Goodpasture Island area', this particular rezoning request being one of several. It made little sense to him, he said, to now take action on a request for commercial use in that area when the results of the study were about to have Council consideration. This requested zone change appeared incompatible with recommendations of the study, and to act on it before acting on the recommendations would define future development of that are.a without consideration of the study which might be in accordance with or opposed to the General Plan as it now exists. He recognized the delay that had been involved but thought it better to wait a little longer rather than take action that might negate the results of all the time and effort involved in the commercial study. Councilman Haws wondered how long mandamus proceedings would take should that be the consequence of not removing the issue from the table. Mr. Long estimated from three months to two years, depending upon court action. If the case was lost in trial court, the decision to appeal might be made. Mr. Long said he was not sug- gesting that the applicant's attorney had any idea a writ of mandamus would be issued, but if it was, that challenge would have to be met. " Councilman .Keller asked if his understanding was correct that if the issue was opened again for review of just the minutes, any information gathered since those meetings relevant to the commercial study could not be considered. Mr. Long said the application would have to be decided on the basis of evidence in those minutes. However, if a h~aring was reopened, and testimony introduced regarding information in the commercial study, then that information could be taken into consideration. He added that the possibility that the study might result in amendment to the ~ General Plan was not a consideration. However, there could be some factual informa- tion in the report that might somehow be relevant. There would have to bedis- tinction between conclusions in the report and the possibility of an amendment to the 1990 Plan as opposed to the factual information in the report which might be relevant. Councilman Keller thought the proper action would be to send the rezoning applica- tion back to the Planning Commission and at the same time take under consideration recommendations on the L&B report, recognizing that the report could have an effect on the rezoning. He felt that at least would better the position of the applicant, he would not be waiting until July for a decision. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. williams to remove the rezoning application from the table and refer it to the Planning commission for h~aring process. Councilman Murray felt that action would place the Commission in a difficult posi- tion - ask~ng for a recommendation before disposing of the two-year process involved in the commercial study, especially when that action was just about to be taken. He agreed that the item should be taken from the table but thought the most de- sirable course, if final action wasn't taken, was to at least have new information on which to base consideration. Mr. Keller recognized the process the L&B report had been through, but he thought this issue could "fall in behind" consideration of that. Assistant Manager aft~r consultation with planning staff said the earliest meeting at which the Commission could consider the issue if it was referred would be the first meeting in April. If it was referred, it could be assumed the Council would have made some disposition of the commercial study. Mr. Keller said that in recognitio~ of the applicant's position as well as that of the city as a whole e 3/10/75 - 16 12.0