03/10/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilman Bradley didn't think a fair and accurate decision could be made on review of the existing record because it was not an actual transcript. Mr. Thorp said they would waive any objection to review of the existing record as opposed to a verbatim ... transcript. But that was not Mr. Bradley's concern. He said a proper decision .., could not be made without a verbatim transcript before either the Commission or the Council. Vote was taken on the motion to reconsider based on existing record. Motion defeated, Councilman Keller voting aye; Councilmen Murray, Bradley, Hamel, and Haws voting no. Mr. Bradley moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to refer the zone change re- quest to the Planning Commission for public hearing. Motion carried, Council members Murray, Bradley, Hamel, and Haws voting aye; Council- man Keller voting no. Comm 2/26/75 See action below ~1r. Nurray moved seconded by ~lr. Hamel to suspend the rules and remove the rezoning application from the table. :-10t ion carried unanimously. Laurence Thorp reviewed the history of the zone change request citing specific meeting dates at which it was considered and actions taken. He also noted th~ commercial study ordered by the Council, completed by Livingston and Blayney, and delay of the zoning request until that study was completed. Mr. Thorp said he would be speaking to the issue of referral of the request back to the Planning Commission (action taken by the Council in commi ttee-of-the-\.;hole meet- ing - see minutes above). He repeated his client's statement during committee discussion that if Council members based their decision upon a review of the e written record he would not object to the fact that tllcre was no verbatim transcript. lie said that state law mandated action on the request, and since it had been almost three years since the rezoning application was filed he thought action should be taken now. He cited several actions which he said indicated the Council did not want to make a decision. Referral to the Planning Commission now, he said, would delay it again and he thought the applicants had waited long enough, that the Council had a legal and moral obligation to mak~ a decision. He recommended a 30-daydeadline for retuin of a recom~endation from the Planning Commission, if the Council decided to go ahead with the referral, so that the owners would not have to wait out another extended delay and would know what they could do with the property. Councilman Murray asked for correction of the February 26, 1975 committee-of-the- whole minutes to shO\" that he. did not agree that the item should be taken from the table and that he voted no on the motion to remove it from the table. The corrections were so ordered. ~tr. ~lurray noted the wording of the motion at the time the issue \lIas tabled (June 25, 1973) was critical to action to be taken now - that the application was tabled pending completion of the refinement study of the Goodpasture oppor- tunity area for the purpose of establishing criteria for determining what de- velopment should occur there. The revie\1I of that study \lias no\\' in process. He reviewed actions taken by the Council with regard to the Goodpasture Island area. He said action \lIas &Oon to be taken with regard to the commercial study which _.. would help resolve the questions faced in determining land use in the Goodpasture ... Island area. To step outside that process.no\\', he said, and act on the subject rezoning request would defeat the intent of previous actions. He said that if the item:was removed from the 'table prior to completion.of the study review, 3/10/75 - 18 122