01/10/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e be used to base a judgement on the diagrammatic proposal, in other words, how may the Council make a decision until the Council sees the --- proposal for that site? Mr. Saul reported that they now know the gen- eral outlines of the development and its general characteristics as proposed in'the diagrammatic proposal and that in his judgment an ade- quate job had been done. He again referred to the Planning Commission's approval on November 9 of the PUD development and he felt that the mate- rial cited in that Staff Report was conclusive. Councilman Bradley then asked if final approval had been given; Mr. Saul replied there are two more levels for the development to go through be- fore final approval is granted. Mr. Bradley then asked if the Council had the option to deny or vote against rezoning of the PUD at its third readi nq. Mr. Saul replied the Council can deny the diagrammatic approval request, but in doing so they must make specific findings for denial. He indicated final approval will be coming before the Council and a Staff decision will be made to approve or deny and of course it can be appealed again to the Planning Commission. Mr. Long indicated that the Council could not address the issue of rezon- ing at this particular meeting because it would require a formal applica- tion by someone to set the process in motion. This was in regard to a question asked by Councilman Bradley as to whether the rezoning has been made from R-2 or RA. Councilman Bradley indicated that the first and second reading had been held before the present Council was elected and perhaps conditions had changed, that the public needs are different now. e He expressed his concern over the period of time which has elapsed since this project was begun and indicated perhaps a new hearing is needed. '-' Mr. Long indicated those concerns were valid but they should be taken up at another meeting. I Mr. Bradley then referred to the Resolution that had been handed appel- lants for the PUD development and said he wondered if the Council had the power to consider Items 1 through 6 at this particular time. Mr. Lonq indicated that in the City Code provision the Council had agreed to give more finality to the Planning Commission decisions, particu- larly at these early stages. He said that it was the Council's duty to point out errors and then affirm, reverse or modify them. If the Counci 1 felt they needed to reverse errors made by the Planning Commission, then the Council needed to point out where the error was made in judgment, but first conclude an error had indeed been made. Mr. Bradley then asked if the Plannning Commission had considered the Items 1 through 6 in the Resolution in the hearing, to which Mr. Saul replied that the Planning Commission did not have that list of condi- tions before it, but had had a list of 19 conditions which were consi- dered and those six were included though not worded precisely in the same manner. Public hearing was closed with no further testimony being presented. - Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel to deny the appeal from the ',-- Planning Commission decision to grant diagrammatic approval of the is 1/10/77 - 9