07/24/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, that findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and e minutes of June 6, 1978, 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. Mr. Delay wondered if the neighborhood group had actually asked the Planning Commission to look at the refinement plan and had suggested changes from C-1 zoning, or whether the area was actually planned for residential use. Mr. Porter said the plan itself, recognizing it is a policy document, did indicate there should be no commercial uses in the area. However, no implementation of the plan has taken place regarding C-1 zoning. Neither the neighborhood association nor the residents in the area have dealt with it in a direct manner. He said first the residents of the area had gotten property owners to petition for the zone change. That took place, and then the neighborhood association wished to continue to rezone according to the plan. The Planning Commission advertised the remaining properties before rezoning. Some neighborhood people were concerned because they felt the property was a good location for commercial uses. The Planning Commission then asked the neighborhood association to look at the existing plan to see if it was still valid. A report had been received from that neighborhood association by the Planning Commission today. It will require plan amendments to change some zoning back to commercial uses. He said that has not been done, so the current rezoning before Council this evening would be consistent with the . existing plan. Mr. Delay was unsure about that process. He wondered if this were a reasonable process for the future regarding other refinement plans, noting that if there were resistence in the neighborhood should those plans be referred back for further study and review. Mr. Porter said the difficulty came in that the plan representation and planning implementation often have different audiences from neighborhoods. He felt this would be a normal problem to be faced with each refinement 'plan. The Laurel Hill Neighborhood Association is trying to deal with the problems in that area and have to have adjustments to the plan. He hoped in the future there would be more exposure for the neighborhood people to future refinement plans so they will know what is being adopted and the impact to the property. In response to a question from Mr. Lieuallen, Mr. Porter said the present refinement plan indicates that commercial uses should not be in that area. However, since adoption of the plan, the neighborhood group is now saying that perhaps that may not be the right position to take. He noted originally the Planning staff had recommended that some C-1 zoning be retained when the original plan was adopted. Citizens at that time rejected that idea. He felt the important thing was for the City to rezone according to the plan such as the present rezoning before Council this evening. The Planning Commission has asked for a restudy of the plan and a neighborhood group is coming back with a recommendation. He did not feel that process was not normal e 7/24/78--4 S1~