02/13/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

he was reluctant to suggest that alternative. In response to a question by Mr. Bradley, Mr. Saul said the applicant did not wish to withdraw his appeal, but wished to change his zone request from R-3 to R-2. .- Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to allow the applicant to modify his request for zone change from R-3 to R-2 and refer it back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Bradley said the intent of his motion was to indicate the Council was allowing the applicant to make a modification and sending it back to the Planning Commission under City Council's directive. Mr. Williams wondered if that particular motion would undermine the interests of the applicant and the appellant, and wondered further if this were consistent with the recommendation in Item 3 of Mr. Saul's memo dated February 8, 1978. Mayor Keller pointed out the Planning Commission's responsibility was to modify such changes, not City Council. Mr. Saul, in responding to Mr. Williams, said the motion was a reasonable facsimile of his suggested course of action in Item 3. He also noted the Mayor pointed out a very legitimate concern. The process usually followed would be an applicant making a request to the City through the Planning Com- mission; and after review and denial by the Planning Commission, then an appeal is submitted from the Planning Commission decision to the Ci ty Counci 1. If then the appl i cant wi shes to change his request, perhaps the City Council does have some consideration to ask for consistency in applications by requesting them to make that application before the Planning Commission first. Mr. Bradley said the intent of his motion in the two parts was that the first would show City Council has the authority and option to allow a change of appeal; the second would send it back to the Planning Commission. -- Mr. Lieuallen wondered if this was a violation of the Code regard- ing the Planning Commission. He wondered if the Council could hear requests that did not go to the Planning Commission, noting that seemed to be what Mr. Bradley was saying. City Attorney said he was not sure that was what Mr. Bradley was suggesting; however, the difference between the staff recommendation and the motion is academic but reaches the same result. Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. Mayor Keller requested staff comment on this procedure. E. Women's Commission Request Re: Boycotting Attendence at Conventions Held in States Not Yet Ratifying ERA Recommended by Women's Commission December 30, 1977 - 2/13/78--6 '10