10/12/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, Mr. Saul said Council had received synopses at varying points along the line as to how the decision had come about, noting the Blayney . report in July 1976. He said an analysis was available of why some areas were recommended for rezoning and why others were not. The Planning Commission had held hearings after receiving the Blayney report, made certain modifications, and had come to the conclusion a mixed-use zoning was appropriate. The final action by the Planning Commission deleted certain areas and a synopsis can be prepared as to why that occurred. He said Council had been given all the Planning Commission minutes on the question of mixed-use zoning that began in July 1977. Council had previously received minutes of prior Planning Commission hearings on R-4 zoning, noting it was an 80- to 90-page document, but could be supplied if Council so wished. In regard to starting the process allover again, Mr. Saul said that was an option open to City Council. He noted the Planning Commission had been dealing with this problem since July and August 1976 and it would be nice to get something resolved. Mr. Lieuallen said, as he recalled from October 10 meeting, City Attorney had advised the hearing had to be open to all persons and that might prolong the meeting. Mr. Long said that provision of the Code requires holding of a public hearing and giving notice to all interested persons on the entire matter. Mr. Obie wondered if the ordinance required just a joint meeting between Planning Commission and Councilor a joint meeting and public hearing. Jim Saul read from Code, which stated all persons interested be given notice and be invited to attend and testify. e In response to a question from Mayor Keller, City Attorney replied the zoning question would be treated as a package, and if Council takes ~ action contrary in any way, it requires a joint meeting and public testimony must be taken. Mr. Haws and Obie suggested staff research and prepare suggested changes in that portion of the Code to allow Council some options. Mr. Delay recognized Council as facing the problem of a joint meeting, noting he was not sure that is a problem. He felt it only appropriate for a joint Planning Commission and City Council meeting to take a hard look at the decision being debated, noting the Planning Commission and staff had spent considerable time in researching, studying, and holding public hearings on this item. He was not sure Council should be in a position to make changes on staff and Planning Commission's decisions without discussing such changes in a joint meeting. Mr. Lieuallen supported Mr. Delay.s remarks. He said the rationale for opening up the hearing again was that two property owners were not given the same consideration as other property owners in the area had received. He said he had never gotten that impression from reading the minutes and staff notes. He said it had been a very e 10/12/77--2 11~