Minutes 08/22/1978 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ ') .lL ,I-,.; TUESDAY AUGUST 22, 1978 neighborhood, introduced a motion that Council accept the Planning Commission's recommendation (for denial). Councilman Oakes, in offering his second to the motion, indicated his desire not to over-ride the Planning Commission in such matters and, also, a preference for Council to meet with the Commission for an exchange of information. Meanwhile, City Attorney Worthy advised Council of his opinion that Mr. Custer's application appears to be in proper order (i.e., evidence points to compliance with the City's technical requirements) and, further, advised Council that its decision sould be consistent with its prior decisions on like matters; otherwise, the Council might be charged as being arbitrary in its decision. Councilman Greene, in expressing agreement with City Attorney Worthy's advice and conclusions, expressed the opinion that Mr. Custer is asking no more of Council than Council has done for other applicants and, in addition, could find no grounds for disapproving Mr. Custer's application. Mayor Hobson, citing the need for apartment-type housing, particularly under a continually- rising inflationery market (which makes more and more difficult for younger couples to purchase homes), expressed support for approving Mr. Custer's application. Vice-Mayor Cole viewed the proposed development as making the best usage of the property and, then, offered a substitute motion to grant to Mr. Custer the Special-Use Permit, as applied for, which permit would become valid only upon approval by the Planning Commission of the resubdivision of Mr. Custer's property. Councilman West then called Council's attention to past difficulties which arose in the one or two instances the Council over-rode the recommendations of the Planning Commission and, also, urged Council--prior to taking final action in this matter--to give the Planning Commission an opportunity to present to Council the Commission's rationale for its decision or recommendation in the case at hand. Councilman Greene, in response, cited the one or two prior variances with the Commission's recommendations, noting that Council is responsible for the final decision in such matters and, too, that he could foresee no new evidence being presented (i.e., which could warrant a postponement by Council of a decision). There being no other discussion and/or comments on this matter, Council voted (as follows) on Vice-Mayor Cole's substitute motion (which had been duly seconded by Councilman Greene):