CC MIN 1973 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

474 Mayor Keckley requested an expression from the Council members as to their opinion as to propriety of holding a public hearing on the matter at this point , in view of the fact it had not had the benefit of study by the Planning Commission . He suggested as alternatives either opening the public hearing , taking testimony without making a final determination , for referral to the Planning Commission , or proceeding with a public hearing and reach a decision at this meeting . During the ensuing discussion , City Attorney noted that under the Zoning Ordinance , the Planning Commission would not be required to hold a public hearing ; however , if the Commission is requested to consider the matter and referral is made back to Council , for Council to avoid setting another public hearing , with the attendant publication of notice and mailing , he recommended that they set a time and place certain that it would come before Council again , scheduled so as to allow time for the Commission to hear the matter and prepare a report It was the consensus of Council that it would be inappropriate for them to make a conclusive decision at this time on the appeal , without benefit of the expertise of the Planning Commission . It was noted that the appeal was direct to Council from a decision by a body subordinate to the Planning Com- mission, and it was suggested that the Ordinance needed some refinement in this respect . (Memo 7/23/73 ) Councilmen Leipzig , Norris and Weymouth expressed the belief that the public hearing should first be heard at the Planning Commission level , and the City Attorney so recommended . Following additional discussion, Councilman Norris moved that the matter be referred to the Planning Commission , and that the Planning Commission be directed to hold a public hearing and make a recom-. mendation back to City Council , seconded by Councilman Leipzig . (Motion later withdrawn) . City Attorney advised that in order to not have to republish the notice of hearing , Council might set a time for referral to Council by the Planning Commission , Mayor Keckley indicated that he had conferred with Chairman Soderer , of the Planning Commission , who had indicated August 14th would be the earliest possible time for their public hearing, followed by August 28th . However , in consulting both parties to the matter , the August 14th date was inconvenient to the appellant and representatives for the developer indi - cated August 28th was inconvenient to them . Mr . John Sears , attorney for the Developer , OSB Construction Co . , felt that there were serious legal questions as to whether the appeal could even proceed . However , if it could , then he re- quested the earliest possible date . He believed that under the City ' s Ordinance , the only question that could be presented on the appeal was whether the Architectural Review Committee had considered the Environmental Impact Report , and their Minutes of June 19 , 1973 , reflected that they had . He ad - vised that he was prepared to speak to that one question . 7-23 -73 Reg . Mtg .