09-21-99 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

action. The term “discourage” would give the City some leeway. Baker stated the word “disallow” was the basis for the discussion at the August meeting. Zisla stated his objection was to the term “spot zoning,” which is an undefined term. How big is a spot? Baker stated this is a public hearing and asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak on the issue. Jerry Hartlaub, 2133 Erin Court, asked how many Commission members have read the detail. Hartlaub said he assumed the Commission worked on a policy level and not the detail. Baker responded he had read the details of the Comprehensive Plan. Baker stated he was involved in framing the first Comprehensive Plan and was knowledgeable about the Plan. Hartlaub asked if the document showed traceability to citizen input. Baker stated the new Comprehensive Plan was predicated on input from the neighborhood meetings. Hartlaub stated he attended a couple meetings where notes were taken. Baker said he could not respond to that. Teague stated the consultant and the staff took notes. The consultant used much of that input to formulate the policies. Hartlaub stated his point was that, if the City is creating the Plan based on citizen input, the City should refer to the input in the Plan. Baker stated that citizen input was not the only consideration upon which the Plan is based. Hartlaub stated that a record of all the meetings held and the notes should be made available. Baker cited the example of public hearings; the testimony of the public is not the only basis for the Planning Commission’s decision. Hartlaub stated that conclusions were reached at the neighborhood and public meetings and the reader cannot tell whether these conclusions were used in the Comprehensive Plan. Teague stated the consultant created a summary of the comments from the neighborhood events and included them in a summary document that the Task Force reviewed in detail. That material is on file and is available for review by Mr. Hartlaub. Hartlaub said holding meetings is very easy; was this detail used in the Comprehensive Plan? PH. Motion by Baker, seconded by Livingston, 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion TO CLOSE THE UBLIC EARING Carried. CPU Motion by Zisla TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE OMPREHENSIVE LAN PDATE WITH THE CP. INCLUSION OF THE THREE CHANGES OUTLINED BY THE ITY LANNER In response to a request from Zisla, Teague reviewed the three changes. In response to Baker’s request for a second to the floor motion, Livingston so moved. Zisla asked that the record show that he read the plan and the detail. Zisla stated he was puzzled about the question on the handling of the citizens’ input. Specific issues or problems with a point in the Plan should be articulated and addressed as part of the planning process. The reason for this public hearing is to deal with specific problems. Not hearing any specific problems, Zisla said he was inclined to vote for approval. Livingston stated he has been involved in the process for three Comprehensive Plans. Livingston said he was also involved with the park planning hearing. Many neighbors attended that meeting and their comments were entered in the record. Citizen comment is definitely reflected in the Plan. Baker called for a vote on the motion. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried. Nonconforming Use Permit & Site Plan Review (continued) Houman Architects/Mir Ali Teague stated the applicant has requested that their proposal be continued until the October Planning Commission meeting. The applicant has signed an extension to extend the request to 120 days. Baker asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak during the public hearing for this item. No one responded. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1999\09-21-99.WPD 2