|
<br />Mr~ ?bie indicated he was not in a position to support any of the options
<br />outlIned ~y thel Traffic Division, that he would like to see the possibility
<br />o~ ~ pe:mlt sys~em for e~isting industry explored, a possibility on the
<br />lImItatIon, perhaps, of hours and days of the week for truck traffic,
<br />and the possibility of an east-west arterial development. Mr.
<br />Lieuallen said he did not see the issue as voting for or against 4It
<br />either faction in the area, but sees it as a compromise situation
<br />with everyone having to give a little bit. He said who was there
<br />first is irrelevant, that everyone in the area has a legitimate
<br />interest in that area and it is up to the Council to decide how
<br />to make the area more livable for both sides. Mr. Delay indicated
<br />agreement with Mr. Lieuallen. He said the Council was dealing
<br />with the question of growth as the issue, and that asking for a
<br />compromise on both sides is the most likely solution, with indus-
<br />try and society compromising until better links in the roadway
<br />can be developed. Mr. Bradley expressed his concern over the cost;
<br />the economic and social costs to people in the area. He said the
<br />question of allocating those costs is pertinent, that business
<br />can pass on those costs to society, while the social cost to the
<br />neighborhoods in the area is the main concern to him.
<br />
<br />Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to direct staff to
<br />prepare a resolution incorporating Resolution D-12 (Option
<br />No.3) with provision in the resolution that it not go into
<br />effect until the West 11th improvement from Bailey Hill to
<br />Beltline Road is completed. Motion carried with Council-
<br />members Haws, Bradley, Delay, Lieuallen, and Smith voting
<br />aye; Hamel, Williams, and Obie voting no.
<br />
<br />Wes Morgan, Nils Holt and Associates, testified that he had no
<br />knowledge of the meeting that had been held in January, and had
<br />had no notification that publiC testimony was to be taken at that
<br />time. He wondered if there was a possibility of establishing a
<br />basis for a possible rehearing. Mr. Bradley again asked Council
<br />to reconsider opening the hearing. Mr. Obie replied that further
<br />testimony could be taken when the vote on the resolution appeared
<br />before the Council.
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />A short recess was taken.
<br />
<br />1-B-2
<br />
<br />H. Amendment to zoning code relating to Mobile Home Parks and Sub-
<br />divfsions Amending Sections 3.005, 3.285, 3.455(2), 8.568(4),
<br />8.690, 9.254, 9.310, 9.312, 9.324, 9.326, 9.354, 9.368, 9.4?4,
<br />9.452, 9.544, 9.802, 9.804, 9.806, 9.808, 9.810, 9.812, 9.814,
<br />9.816, 9.818; repealing Sections 9.706(3),9.820, 9.822, 9.826,
<br />9.828, 9.830, 9.832, 9.834, 9.836, 9.838, and 9.840; and declaring
<br />an emergency.
<br />Manager indicated this amendment to the zoning code had been rec-
<br />ommended by the Planning Commission on December 13, 1976. He said
<br />some of the changes in the code were simply housekeeping changes,
<br />but there were some significant major revisions. He said the
<br />changes in the code had had considerable study over a number of
<br />years, and that the changes would conform more to state and fed-
<br />eral regulations. Gary ehenkin, Planning Department, indicated
<br />that his department had been working on this amendment since 1974.
<br />He said the present code had been adopted prior to the 1968 zoning
<br />ordinance and there was conflict and redundancy in putting the two
<br />
<br />-
<br />
<br />2/14/77--8
<br />
<br />Blf
<br />
|