02/13/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-- ett " No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Councilors. Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of December 6, 1977, were entered as part of the record as reference thereto. C.B. 1605--Authorizing rezoning from R-1 to R-2 10jA PD property located south of Eastwood Lane and east of Fairway Loop was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. t1r. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, that findings sup- porting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of December 6, 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. Motion carried unani- mously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. approved and given final passage. Councilors present voting aye, the and numbered 18114. Delay, that the bill be Roll call vote. All bill was declared passed D. Appeal of Planning Commission Denial for Zone Change Request from R-1 to R-3: Property located at northeast corner of 15th Avenue and Villard Street (Daugherty)(Z 77-43) Denied by Planning Commission December 6, 1977, with a 3:2 vote. Manager said a late notification had been received from the owner indicating he wishes to change the application, thus withdrawing this application and reapplying to Planning Commission with a revised application that would result in another hearing before the Planning Commission. City Attorney said testimony taken at this evening's meeting would serve no purpose if the application were going to be withdrawn. Mr. Bradley questioned whether the application had to be referred back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Saul responded he had met with the applicant's attorney, with indications that the applicant intended to present to City Council a proposal for R-2 zonin9 rather than R-3. This would be a different request than the one presented to the Planning Commission. He felt if it were not referred back for Planning Commission consideration, it would be a disservice to the Planning Commission. The applicant's attorney had indicated his ~lient's willingness to have the matter referred back to the Planning Commission. That appeared to be the best course 09 action for Council at this time. The matter would then be heard by Planning Commission on March 7. Mr. Saul said the Council could proceed with the public hearing this evening, up- holding the recommendation of the Planning Commission; however, 2/13/78--5 I'