CC MIN 1957 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

..,...�._._ ,.,....... ...._ - r� .__..___ . .:. I°'* 2 � vPas determined that this item be hand7.ed as a specif�c change after action on the plarz. The people on Ur�ion A venue stated that they were sti1.1 opposed to theax street being included in the R-3-G zoning. This matter had been referred back to the Planning Connnission and they reaffirmed their original stand t�,o al].av� R-3-G zonirig to that en�ire area in question. This was followed by dis- cussion. - � � The Friendly Acres people xant to remain under R-2 zoning. Richard Delucchi spoke in favor of R-2 � zoning as did Itidr. �Connors of 2810 Fair Oaks. , Eill Henderson� 105 Hyde Street� spoke against the proposed rezoning in the vicinity of Hyde Street. �:e stated that the people on Hyde do not want to face apartment buildings. The Planning Co�nmission �"'�" reported back t o the Council and upheld their original stand. If the Council cuts the zoning line � �. back one lot from �de Street they �ould eliminate 12 parcels af land. Arthur Smith� property �ner on Avondake� spoke for himself and Mrs. John Gill who c�ns property on I�yde Street. They do not want their property rezoned R-3-G. Stan Hummel� 101 Finger Avenue� spoke against the R-3-G rezoning. rJ4r. T�Thitmore asked wripr his request for R-3-G zoning on Arlington Road �asn�t bei.ng considered. Couneilman �Peiss read the follvaring prepared. statement: I have voiced my ob�ections to this plan ,on repeated occasions. I have also made certain definite a nd general sugge5tions� which I considered� and still consider to be saand and pertinent. As t ime went on� and as it becams apparent that no matter who� when or £t�am what saurce ob�ections or suggestions were made� the pawers that be remained adama.nt in thei.r stand� this xas it� and triis you can ha.ve� naturally I becarne somewhat cauatic in rcqr remarks. After u�y most recent remarks on this question I made the statement and I quote - '�But the attitude appears to be the public be damned." I felt some- what contrite about that stat�nent for a �vhile thinking that they may. have be�u a li.ttle tao strong� but gentlemen� sl.o�ly I veered back to the same feeling and position as when I was first prompted to utter them. � I am especiall,y i.mpelled to that feeling and thinking as a result of statements made by one of the members of the Planning Cm�uni.ssion before this boc�r at aur meeting of September 16th. VYhile speaking �, on � d�ff�ren� subject but i.nvolving a public hearing� the gentleman� to the best of n�r recollection stated that he felt that normally only those directly and selfishly interested �ould appear or do � appear to voice theix sentiments and objections at public hearings - the gentleman further stated that �"" he �ras speaking for the people� he being a member of the Planning Commisszon� because he believed that all others vrho did not appear or voice their opinians were in accord �rith whatener proposal �as the subject of the hearing. Gentlemen - I submit that �is a very fall.aciaus and unjustifiabl.e attitude to take - I feel confident . that even professional pols�ers would reject such asstunptions. Froan my conversation and contacts with the average citizen I find that most people have become somewhat bitter about the �rhole thing� they feel it is useless to come before our public bodies because nobocjy pays ±mzch attention to the littl.e fellcnr. Gentlemen - at our hearing of September 3rd on thia question� I summarized r� thinking� Councilman Staut made a motiou and it was adopted� calling for detailed specifications and reason� to s upport the Pla,nning Commissions recommendations. They have not been submitted. to this date to the best of � rr�y la�c�rledge. Nor have we at any time received any remarks or recom�endations� or even an analysis by the City Manager. I feel such specifications� ana],ysis� and information would be of inestimable �zal.ue to us� if we are to act intelli�ently and make saund decisions. Accordingly duty comoels me to reco�nmend to yau that this matter should of necessity be returned to the Planning Commission and the City Manager for full evaluation in the light of cn.rrent and previous Council praceedings� as well as the furnishing of the detailed information and data previ rnzsly requested. I,etters were received from Mrs. Theresa Cof£ey� 12 I�yde Street� and Uirs. Virginia Cullen� 4 Hyde Street� � anproving the R-3-G zoni.ng on Hyde Street• Counci].man Weiss mo�red that they c lose the public heari.ng� � eeccmded by Councilman Spillers. Council.man Stout asked if the map could be amended at ar�y time. The City Attorney ruled that the plan could be amended after �adoption but it �auld be necessary to refer any such amendments to the Planning Commission first. The motion carried. � Councilman �Peiss moved to include the faur items� that the entire map be returned to the Planning Com- �„ mission and give consideration to elimi.nate the areas that were the sub�ect for discussion tonight with the special instruction that the Council desires the area nc,�r designa�ed.R-3-G in Farm Hills area be deleted� that Friendly Acres area be turned back to R-2� and all the other changes taken up tonight be deleted. The motion lost for lack of a second. C rnxncilman �eiss moved. that the map be returned to tY�e Planning Advisor with instructions that they reval.uate it and furnish specifications as requested and they specifically eliminate the ft-3-G in the --,�,R�� ..-�--�.ra�..�.,: r�..wr��