07/16/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

of the titpe required to refer to the Commission, submission of .information re- quired of the petitioners, etc., the policy decisions ,vi11 prob:'1bly have been made before the Commission recomn<endation on this request ,vdS n'tl1rw~d. He estimated the earliest time for Commission consideration ,>'ould hc} at its September meeting. Referrinq it now ~>'ould minimize the c].:elali U Iiio,. councilm~n ,Keller felt that under the "current ground rules" there was no ,yay a - good decLsLon could be reached unless it was referred. That would give the opportunity for a good decision based on new hearings. MI. Bradley moved seconded by Mrs. Shirey to postpone action until Comm the July 9 committee-of-the-whole meeting to give time for staff to distribute and Council members to review minutes of Council dis- 7/2/75 cussion when the petitioner last requested removing the application Affirm from the table (March 10, 1975). Motion carried, Council members Murray, Bradley, Haws, and Shirey voting aye; Council members Keller , . , WLllLams, and Hamel voting no; Councilwoman Beal ~bstaining. Zone Change on area south of Kingsley Road between Goodpasture Island Road and Willamette River - From County ACT to C-2 PD (Smith,Brown,Howell) (Z 72-51) Discussion was continued from the July 2 committee-of-the-whole meeting under suspended rules. Assistant Manager reviewed possible alternative actions: Continue tabling, take from the table and reach a decision based on the present record, of take from the table and refer to the Planning Commission under current procedures. Staff recom- mended referral to the Planning Commission. Cou?1:::ilman f.!ur:rdY as;~c'd rd'.ether it ,,'ou1"1 be appropriate if th~ mattt-"Jr !:as r~fecred to the Planning Commission to ask that its deliberations consider recommendations and directions resulting from the Livingston & Blayney report. Stan Long, assistant ci ty attorney, said the Council could express its intent and concern about any sub- - ject at any time, there was no reason why it couldn't on this question, although it might be well to set some parameters. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to refer the rezoning application to the Planning Commission with the additional comment that it is the Comm sense of the Council that the item be considered in the light of recom- 7/9/75 mendations of the Livingston & Blayney study and previous Commission Approve and Council actions regarding that study. Councilman Keller suggested the Commission also be asked to prioritize the item be- cause of the Commission's workload. Councilman Murray hoped the referral would be handled as quickly as possible but it was not his idea that it should "bump" any other item already on the Commission agenda. Assistant Manager noted that addi- tional information would have to be submitted by the applicant in view of current requirements. Even though it was appropriate to request speedy action in view of the already long delay, there would as a matter of course be some time taken up in getting .the required information, preparation of staff notes, etc. John Porter, Dlanning director, added that the September Commission meeting would be the earliest possible date the item could be considered. Councilman Keller asked if the ci ty attorney was still of the opinion that referral was the right thing to do, was it a just action. Stan Long answered that it was the appropriate thing for the Council to do. Laurence Thorp, attorney representing the applicants, said referral to the Commis- e sion would result in another 90-day delay and he could see where it would perform no useful purpose. He said facts surrounding this application had not substan- tially changed since it was filed or since hearings were held. The only thing that might have changed, he said, would be the attitudes of Commission and Council members with regard to growth forms relating to this particular area. He ci ted 7/16/75 - 12 ~~S