10/25/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilwoman Beal commented that the basic question was whether an existing clean industry "unfortunately" located in a high-density residential area could enlarge its operation and whether "one little piece" of the zoning code should be changed to meet parking requirements. In response to Mr.Haws' -- statement that the process appeared to be backward - the expansion needs be- fore allowing the use itself - Mrs. Beal said the point was that the bakery was there and was there before any sort of zoning was in existence, it had a right to be there, and was a good neighbor. Neighbors have indicated they do not disagree with the intended use, she said, and it should be considered as a practical matter. Counqilman Bradley asked whether approval of this zone change request could be conditioned upon the approval of the code amendment which would permit bakeries in the C-2 zone. Mr. Long answered that there was no code provision for that process. He suggested as an alternative action setting the effective date of the rezoning ordinance for some time in the future. However, he pointed out that if any change was wanted before that effective date arrived, the Fasano burden would again have to be dealt with. He recommended looking at the question in the light of having raised new issues and the timing of this applica- tion for rezoning, and suggested that it would be appropriate to have Mr.Gleaves respond to that. Mr. Gleaves had no response other than the legal argument as to raising those questions. Councilwoman Beal called for the question, and vote was taken on :ldoption of findings and second reading as stated. Motion de- feated, lacking unanimous consent - Council members Keller, Beal, Murray, Hamel, and Shirey voting aye; Council members Haws and Bradley voting no. Councilman Haws said he would change his vote so as to have final considera- -- tion of the council bill at this meeting. Councilman Bradley said he would change his vote also if staff didn't perceive the questions he raised as legiti- mate. Otherwise, he said, he would maintain his "no" vote in hope that a re- port could be brought back at the next Council meeting addressing the issue of timing with regard to the intended quasi-judicial and legislative decisions. Mr. Saul advised that the staff doesn't take a position, the matter could legitimately be disposed of at this meeting. Mayor Anderson called for another vote on the motion for adoption of findings and second reading as stated. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. Motion carried - Council members Keller, Beal, Murray, Hamel, and Shirey voting aye; Council members Haws and Bradley voting no, and the bi 11 was declared passed and numbered 17793. 5. South side of 3rd between Jackson and VanBuren - From M-2 to R-2 (Johnson)(Z 76-33) Jim Saul, planner, explained that the property was now developed for residential use. The proposed R-Z zoning would allow development of two additional units on the property. He noted the recent approval of R-2 zoning on property to the east. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by - Council members. Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of October 5, 1976 were received as part of the record II-B-2 Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. 10/25/76 - 14 S\q