03/10/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e the applicant could argue that conclusions drawn in the study were not valid, that only the 1990 Plan should be considered. Furthermore, to make a decision on this rezoning request now would have the appearance of giving someone the opportuni ty of "getting in under the wire" before pol ic ies \,'ere adopted. Since actions on the commercial study were so near completion, he said, they should be finished first, then consideration given to this issue as originally brought up. Councilman Hamel wondered when the commercial study would be completed. There was no specific date known. r,layor Anderson commented that the commercial study was undertaken in good faith, even though it had not been completed within the six-month period originally set. He thought the Council acted \visel)' in trying to arrive at a good plan before zoning action in the Goodpasture Island area. He agreed with ~r. Murray that to open this issue again would obligate the Council to consideration of other applications in the same area. Manager noted contact after the Livingston and Blayney report was presented when applicant's attorney indicated that taking the question from the table at that time (July 1974) would probably result in denial. Only in the last two to three months, he said, had there been a diligent effort to bring this application back for Council action. ~lr.Thorp thought the thrust C'f Councilman ~Iurra)"s argument was that the Livingston and Blayney report would change the direction zoning.was already taking in that area and he said that was a "pretty big assumption." He thought it speculative to project how the zoning formula would change between now and some time in the future or that it would change at all. He \Vas asking for action nO\~ based on in- formation now available, or, if action on the commercial study was so near, that a specific date be set when action would be taken. e Councilwoman Shirey felt action on the study should be completed before action was taken on this request. that if a vote was taken before the study was com- pleted she \Vould have to vote no. Councilman Bradley thought the issue came down to the qllestion of the amount of time taken to act upon the application, that property interests and rights should not be jeopardized because of inefficiency witl\in the governmental process. He thought it appropriate to remove the item from the table and refer it to the Planning Commission. There were no objections to segregation of this item (Item H) for voting on committee action to refer the question to the Planning Commission for public hearing. Approval of committee action defeated, Council members Bradley and Hamel voting aye; Council members Murray. Haws, and Shire)' voting no. I. Hearing Panel Report - March 3, 1975 Approve Present: Council members Williams and Haws; Assistant Public Works Director Don Gilman. e C.B.733 - Levying assessments for paving and storm sewer on 18th Avenue from 100 feet northeast of Harvard Drive'to 1056 feet west of Bailey Hill Road (74-22) Carried over from February 24 1975 Council meeting at the request of Mrs. Melissa Martinson who said she had not received notice of the February 17 hearing on the assessment. Staff reported notice had been sent to Mrs. Martinson of new hearing date (March 3, 1975) but she had not received that notice in time to prepare her protest. She therefore requested further postponement. It was understood that hearing on this council bill would be carried over to panel hearing scheduled for April 7, 1975. /23 3/10/75 - 19