CC MIN 1956 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

21 performance of this function, as well as the many others, it is of course essential f or the council to rely on the services of the v arious corriissions, boards, department heads and of course to the largest extent on the city manager. rr. Dale Stuart's attorney during his presentation b efore the planning commiss- ion on June 12th3 stilted that this councils acticn in taking cognizance of this matter on petition of the people was "arbitrar;y and capricious." Since I am not of the legal profession. I can only approach the validity of said statement as a layman and apply simple logic to it. . Before finalizing our action in this matter, may I request that the city attorney indicate to us, what if any legal complications could result from action on our part to rezone the property in question back from R�3 to R-2? GounciLman Neiss raised the question of possible legal complications to the City. City Attorney Currie stated that he was not sure what Councilman 17eiss meant by legal Complications but he stated that he did not know of any which would effect the City. Council.-aan Weiss moved that the public hearing be closed, seconded by Councilman Spillers and carried. Councilman '.Veiss mored that the Council uphold the Planning Commission's recommendation to rezone the property in question back to 11-2, seconded by Councilman Stout. R ' This was followed by discussion. Councilman Granger stated that he wanted it understood that the original permit was baed or. R-3 zoning and any further permits would be based on R-2 if this motion carried. The permit which has been granted is for the 31 units. Also under dicussion were the matter os spreading charges on proposed street improvements and the number of duplexes in the area. Councilman Stout stated that this has been given considerable consideration by the Planning Commission and also by the Council and he was of the opinion that he should go along with the thinking of the Planning Commission in regard to this matter. On roll call the motion lost on a tie vote with Councilmen Herkner, Spillers and Royer voting No and Councilman Britschgi being noted absent. After discussion as to what action should be taken, Councilman Weiss, based on the fact that there was a 3 to 3 tie, moved that this matter be carried on the agenda for one week, seconded by Councilman Herkner. Mr. Dell Ergo stated that he will be away next week and he asked that this be put over f or two weeks. Councilman Weiss changed the motion to hold this over for two weeks. Councilman Herkner nwitrdrew his second and Councilman Stout then seconded the motion. City Attorney Currie ruled that where there was a tie the matter under consideration could he continuted. The motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING, PLANNING COMUMISSION RECO77MNDATION Tn DENY A. F. R??K?_N'S PETITInN TO REZONE�LOTS 12 TO 114, BLOCK 15, LENOLT (uYHIPPLE NEAR INDUSTRIAL WAY) FROM R-1 TO C-1. The Clerk read the Planning Cummissicn's letter wherein they recommended denial of the request for the f olIC7.ving reasons: 1.. No public necessity was shown. 2. The Palnning Commission wishes to wait until the recommendations on the new Land use plan are before them. Arnold nukan, Real Estate Division of General Petroleum, stated that they have checked very thoroughly into this matter and location. He explained to the Council that they were interested in putting in a service station at this location. They feel that this location on Whipple Avenue would be advisable From what has transpired and what has been presented before this council, careful analysis of the record leads me to believe that this council has recognized the fact that it may have erred in reversing the original recommendation of the planning commission, and which recommendation they the planning commission have again adhered -to. It is evident that the council took its original action on rather meager information submitted to it, and was also influenced by the mere or less indefinite or should we say i-nconclusive statements by the applicant; That the council will be performing its moral obligation to the people by reactifying its erroneous action is indicative in my humble opinion that it had not and will not be acting "arbitrarily or capriciously." At the June 12th, after the planning commission had rendered its affirmation of its previous action toreconanend to this council the rezoning back to R-2 from R-3, it was implied that our, the councils action, seeking to rectify the previous injustice may be a victory for the pationers but could be a denial of the protection of the zoning laws to the people, which they have right, to expect. I say the contrary is true, it is my feeling that the council by its -willingness tos eek to rectify its own error is giving definite and conclusive proof that should clearly establish its desire and will to consider the welfare of all paramount, and ij a clear indication that the people have equal status bafore this boder, one and all. . Before finalizing our action in this matter, may I request that the city attorney indicate to us, what if any legal complications could result from action on our part to rezone the property in question back from R�3 to R-2? GounciLman Neiss raised the question of possible legal complications to the City. City Attorney Currie stated that he was not sure what Councilman 17eiss meant by legal Complications but he stated that he did not know of any which would effect the City. Council.-aan Weiss moved that the public hearing be closed, seconded by Councilman Spillers and carried. Councilman '.Veiss mored that the Council uphold the Planning Commission's recommendation to rezone the property in question back to 11-2, seconded by Councilman Stout. R ' This was followed by discussion. Councilman Granger stated that he wanted it understood that the original permit was baed or. R-3 zoning and any further permits would be based on R-2 if this motion carried. The permit which has been granted is for the 31 units. Also under dicussion were the matter os spreading charges on proposed street improvements and the number of duplexes in the area. Councilman Stout stated that this has been given considerable consideration by the Planning Commission and also by the Council and he was of the opinion that he should go along with the thinking of the Planning Commission in regard to this matter. On roll call the motion lost on a tie vote with Councilmen Herkner, Spillers and Royer voting No and Councilman Britschgi being noted absent. After discussion as to what action should be taken, Councilman Weiss, based on the fact that there was a 3 to 3 tie, moved that this matter be carried on the agenda for one week, seconded by Councilman Herkner. Mr. Dell Ergo stated that he will be away next week and he asked that this be put over f or two weeks. Councilman Weiss changed the motion to hold this over for two weeks. Councilman Herkner nwitrdrew his second and Councilman Stout then seconded the motion. City Attorney Currie ruled that where there was a tie the matter under consideration could he continuted. The motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING, PLANNING COMUMISSION RECO77MNDATION Tn DENY A. F. R??K?_N'S PETITInN TO REZONE�LOTS 12 TO 114, BLOCK 15, LENOLT (uYHIPPLE NEAR INDUSTRIAL WAY) FROM R-1 TO C-1. The Clerk read the Planning Cummissicn's letter wherein they recommended denial of the request for the f olIC7.ving reasons: 1.. No public necessity was shown. 2. The Palnning Commission wishes to wait until the recommendations on the new Land use plan are before them. Arnold nukan, Real Estate Division of General Petroleum, stated that they have checked very thoroughly into this matter and location. He explained to the Council that they were interested in putting in a service station at this location. They feel that this location on Whipple Avenue would be advisable