Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> staff reports and all Commission and Council minutes of hearings held since the <br /> application was filed containing all facts within reason, and said that the only <br /> additional factual'information gained would probably not be relevant. He asked <br /> the Council to take time to make a decision now, to set the item on the regular <br />- agenda for its next meeting to hear additional arguments. Mr. Thorp said that it <br /> appeared the current litigation on this question would have to be pursued if no <br /> decision was forthcoming. He felt there was nothing to be gained in additional <br /> hearings at this time. <br /> Councilman Murray disagreed that referral to the Planning Commission was of no use. <br /> He said this zoning application had been the prime instigation of the commercial <br /> study which involved a major investment. The outcome of that study, he said, would <br /> bring significant policy decisions the Commission did not bave during its earlier <br /> consideration of this application. To base a Council decision on a Commission <br /> recommendation made before it had an opportunity to consider the Livingston & <br /> Blayney recommendations would be a disservice. <br /> Mr. Thorp understood the concerns but emphasized that the Council decision could <br /> not be predicated on change that may occur in the General Plan or on something <br /> that might happen in the future. It must be made on "things as they exist." An <br /> amendment may be made to the Plan, he said, but it was equally true that there may <br /> be no amendment. The decision must be made on the merits of the application, he <br /> said. Ne noted the city attorney had so advised the Council for the obvious <br /> reason that no one knows at this time whether amendments will be made. The facts <br /> remain the same, he said, they have not changed. <br /> Stan Long said there needs to be c1 distinction betlveen evidance dnd informiltior: <br /> and the possibility for potential change in the Plan. A great deal of information <br />e bearing on such issues as timing, etc., has accumulated in consideration of the <br /> Livingston & Blayney report, he said, and there is also the issue of whether the <br /> Council has all the evidence, a good deal of factual information has accumulated. <br /> He said referral to the Commission for evaluation seemed appropriate. <br /> Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, all Council <br /> members present voting aye, except Councilman Hamel voting no. <br /> Assistant Manager raised a procedural question. He noted the committee motion was to <br /> refer the issue to the Planning Commission after rules were suspended to discuss <br /> whether to remove the item from the table. He said the motion should be modified <br /> so as to remove the item from the table and then refer it to the Commission. It was <br /> so ordered. <br /> . <br /> Mr. Thorpe, attorney for the petitioners, requested a time limit on the period in which <br /> the Planning Commission would be requested to return a recommendation. He suggested <br /> 60 days. Assistant Manager said that certain things are required to be done by the <br /> applicant before Commission consideration. Also, that the Council had considered a <br /> time limitation in its committee session but chose not to set one. However, applicant <br /> was assured that the matter would be dealt with as soon as the Commission's agenda would <br /> permit. Councilman Keller commented that there were sometimes difficulties in setting <br /> time limits on consideration of issues. However, in this instance a definite need was <br /> indicated for a decision as quickly as possible and he said that without being specific <br /> the Commission would be encouraged to rush the matter through. Councilman Hamel agreed <br /> with Mr. Keller's comments. <br />e Clarence B;rown, one of the petitioners for the zone change, was dissatisfied with the pro- <br /> posed referral to the Planning Commission. He said it had been kicked back and forth <br /> several times and he considered it "boondoggling." He felt the Council was avoiding a <br /> decision, either for or against the requested change, and he urged that some definite <br /> action be taken now. He noted the various actions requested of the petitioners since <br /> the initial request was filed and said everything required had been submitted. Now the <br /> Council had a moral obligation to decide~hether the zone change would be made. <br /> ~qto 7/1 h/7S - B <br />