11/28/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Lieuallen wondered when Council considered a rezoning if one of the things it had to consider was the need for the rezoning. Hi s . understanding was that the Council does not consider the need on the basis of what the developer says he might or might not do, but on the basis of all possible uses that could be put on the property. Mr. Saul responded that in general, the Planning Commission and Council had followed the practice of evaluation in terms of the overall appropriateness of the request for the district as opposed to zeroing in on a particular proposal by an applicant. Council has not held that that related solely to the question of public need. He said one of the problems involved is that it is extremely difficult for an applicant to demonstrate all the public needs listed in a C~2 District. He said the public need which would come in an applicant's statement would focus on perhaps one or two of those. Stan Long, City Attorney, said it had been extremely difficult to precisely define the term IIpublic needll. He said there were a number of things that could be involved, such as the need for more land of a particular kind of classification, the need to absolve ambi guity, etc. He said the need could be fairly specific or it could be very broad. It was a matter of Council's discretion based on the evidence before it. Mr. Farthing said with respect to public need, Council had two competing policies before it; he felt there was a third one involved. He said Council had general guidelines that propose there should be development in the most economically efficient manner. This existing e zone does not allow the most economic, efficient, or most appropriate need for the neighborhood. Mr. Bradley wondered if staff would recommend that this item be post~ poned until the Whiteaker Refinement Plan is completed. Mr. Saul said staff specifically did not make that recommendation because the City could not take the posture that zone changes or other forms of appli~ cation should be under moratorium until such plans as the Whiteaker Refinement Draft could be finalized. He said the most important point was that the Whiteaker Refinement Plan is simply a draft, and the City has never established a moratorium process waiting for such plans to be finalized. He noted the refinement plan had not even reached the stage of public hearings. Council Bill 1574~~Rezoning from R~3 to C~2 SR property located southwest corner of 5th Avenue West and Adams Street was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that findings supporting the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of October 4, 1977, be adopted by reference thereto; that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council; and that enactment be considered at this time. 11/28/77 ~ 8 .. 818