07/16/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

of the total concern was inappropriate. lie thought that was even mor~ true at this time. Assistant Manager answered that a substantial port.ion of c.';':: (;ooci- pasture Island issues probably would be before the Counc.il {.:i thin th:~ Tl9Xt two weeks and decided prior to return of the Commission's r.ecommencJation 0.'1 this - particular question. Procqdurally, he said; referral to t j;~ Comr:lJ~ ::::5 i on ~'O!.1;' -:: .~ak::- for a sounder judgm(!nt because it would be difficult for the Council [0 rer,d,,:: a dec.ision under Fasano requin~ments on the pres en t record. Stan Long emphasized tiJa t this application wOl1ld have to !)~~, de tJ.'~rl!ii ner; (")~-l ~:3 O;V.!1 merits, not necessarily on what might happen in the future, i . e. , 50.710 concerns, issues, information developed as collateral matter may not be rele~;ant or permiss- ible. He said if present requirements had been in existence when the application was initially filed, it cou.Zd not have been tabled. He said this application was "sandwiched" between the current requirements and those existing in the code prior to Fasano. The policy reflected in the code, he said, might not be a proper and sound pOlicy, and that was II1hy the applicant keeps asking for a dec.ision one way or the other. He emphasized that after looking at the record he thought there was no other way to proceed than to conduct a hearing under rules now existing. Councilman Murray expressed concern about the impact of the "Baker" decision - whether the Commission would be caught in the situation of making a decision on an existing plan which it was in the process of changing. He wondered if the policy decisions would be made in time to preclude a decision on this application. Stan Long answered that that point of view was "result" oriented whereas he looked at it from a procedural perspective. He said the applicant in II1antinc; to reach a particular result could make that argument, but, he (Long) didn't think it was sound. Councilman Hamel felt delay in making a decision on the property t.'as a miscarriage of justice. Even with concerns about growth and changes in that area, he sai d , a decision should have been made when the application was filed. Councilman Bradley asked why the city attorney's opinion given at this ti me was - not given the las t time the petitioners asked that the request be taken from the ta ble. Assistant Manager said that staff at this point was trying to faci l.i ta te the request and be responsive, the point was now reached where consideration of the request II10uld fit in II1ith consideration of the overall area as II1ell. Stan Long revi ewed the opt.ions gi ven the Counci 1 when the request to remove from the table was presented some three months ago, the action taken by the Counc.il reversing comm.ittee action, and various court actions culminating at this time in argument schedu.led for July 7 on a demurrer filed by the city attorney's office. That particular litigation, he said, involves only the question of wheth9r the court will order a particular zone designation and has nothing to do with whether a hearing would be held. He said it was one thing to hold a hearing, another to say a certain action was to be taken during that hearing. The applicant, Mr. Long continued, was asking the Council to decide on way or the other, and he (Long) in response to that request tl1as saying if the application I-lere being filed initially today the decision would have to be made. Councilman Keller thought the procedure outlined was logical - that the matter should be referred to the Planning Commission. Councilman Murray was reluctant to decide on this one question although he said he would like to see the matter settled. He asked if hearing this request now would strengthen the city's legal position in court. Stan Long said he was not giving any advice with regard to the court case - the question was how to respond to this peti tion to take the applica- tion from the table. If the Council decides for the issue to remain tabled, he said, then that position would he defended. He pointed out the ano":Ja 1 'J of ;:his situation - the same thing couldn't happen if the application tyere to be filed no;,.;. And of a.ll the Ulla t tracti ve chai ces the Counci 1 had, he said, he [h:>~;h= referral to the Commission was the best among the bad alternatives. e Councilmqn Nurray asked ;I1hat would be lost besides a II1eek or two if co:;sic.e!:a tion of this isolated case were to wait until the Counci I had taken a policy position with regard to the Goodpasture Island area. Assistant Manager said tr.at because ~9+ 7/16/75 -11