08/31/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Williams wondered if Council was starting to amend a report e which had already been adopted and whether that necessitated a motion for reconsideration. Mr. Long said it would be ruling of the chair. Mayor Keller ruled it was an appropriate motion. Mr. Haws and Mr. Obie both expressed concern about receiving more information and input before deciding a City Council member should be on the Committee. Mr. Bradley, with consent of the second, withdrew his motion. Mr. Bradley requested Council membership on the CAC be discussed Wednesday, September 28. B. Rezoning property located west of Pearl Street and north of 4th Avenue east from M-2 to RG (Evergreen Union Retirement Association) (Z 77-6) Materials distributed to Council. Manager reviewed for Council and Planning Commission that the request for rezoning had come from Planning Commission, and Council had amended the request to include a site review prefix. Staff and Planning Commission considered the site review unnecessary because the conditional use review was already required. Concern related to the effect on Skinner's Butte and the Shelton-McMurphy House. Mr. Bradley had raised the issue at Council meeting and expressed his concern about development in that area. He felt more control e was needed and site review would provide that control. Mr. Bernhard explained if the property were zoned RG, 20 to 22 units could be developed on the property at this time. The Planning Com- mission felt a conditional use permit was more restrictive than site review. He said under the conditional use permit, however, the people could sell off a portion of the property, but it would still allow for 20 to 22 units to be developed. He felt the - addition of site review might cause an extra hardship on the developer and require more time. Ms. Franklin said staff had indicated site review would not be inappropriate and the applicant said site review would not present undue hardship for him. She felt because of the delicate nature of that parcel of land, it would be better to have site review. Ms. Lannom said she had voted against the proposal because site review had not been included. Mr. Pearson said it had been a question of how much was enough. He felt there were safeguards through the conditional use permit and a philosophical question of hardship on the developer if site review were required. He said there would be time delays and expense, that if one process could suffice to protect the publiC interest, then that should be enough. e 8/31/77--9 ~~O --