Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutINTERSTATE LAND PUD - PRELIMINARY - 34-88B - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES (2)Planning and Zoning Board Hearing January 22, 1996 Page 24 followed up on. Issues that City Council chose not to address at that time are being brought up again. Member Colton seconded the motion. He stated that there would be many opportunities for public process on this item between first and second readings. He believed that these guidelines convey what is wanted out of this community. Member Strom asked what the status is of an item that was not advertised. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that if it was a quasi-judicial matter, it would be a problem. However, with respect to the Board wanting to make a recommendation to City Council on a planning item since it is not a final legislative decision, the Board has the authority to do this. Member Strom commented that he would not support the motion because there was no advance notification and should have been on the agenda. The public should have the opportunity to react to it at a public hearing. Member Mickelsen concurred with Member Strom and added that it is not the design and standards that are in questions, it is the appropriate procedure for acting on this that is in question. Member Davidson commented that he would like to approve this now but in principle he would rather see this on the agenda. The motion failed 2-4 with Members Strom, Walker, Mickelson and Davidson in the negative. MOTION TO RESCIND THE BOARD'S JANUARY 8. 1996 ACTION REGARDING THE INTERSTATE LANDS PUD - PRELIMINARY. 334-88B AND RESCHEDULE A NEW HEARING ON FEBRUARY 26. 1996 Director Blanchard stated that a letter was distributed to the Board from David Marvin requesting that the Board not rescind their last action. He gave a brief description of the proposed motion recommending that the Board consider rescinding the action based on the presence of inaccurate information in the record. It is also recommended that the Board direct Staff to place the Interstate Lands PUD Preliminary on the February 26, 1996 P&Z Board hearing agenda. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated that there is no question that false information was provided to the Board with a lengthy discussion surrounding the ODP. He • Planning and Zoning Board Hearing January 22, 1996 Page 25 recommended that based upon the evidence given the Board that was false, would be to rescind the decision and rehear the item. Member Walker asked if this particular PUD is not within any ODP. Director Blanchard responded that this was correct. There was an application for an ODP in 1988 but it was never acted upon by the Board. Member Walker asked what was the appropriateness of reconsidering a PUD if there is no ODP to reflect against. Director Blanchard stated that this issue here is that there was an extensive amount of discussion at the hearing surrounding the validity of the ODP and what was allowed in it. The concern is that extensive discussion on an ODP that does not exist may have affected the final vote. Member Walker asked why the Board should reconsider a PUD that does not have an ODP if the issues revolve around things beyond this PUD but relate to an ODP for the entire parcel. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that the applicant wants to make the argument to the Board that this is a stand alone PUD that is not part of a phase development and that it does not need an ODP. This is what the Board needs to decide and they need to give the applicant the hearing on the argument. He advised that the motion should be made by a Board member that was present at the time that this item was heard. Chairperson Carnes stated that Member Davidson was absent at that hearing. He asked if he should participate in the voting at this time. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that this was not absolutely necessary but did not want to preclude him from voting because he has the information as to why this is being recommended. Since Robert's Rules does not specify, there are enough members present that could make the motion. Member Strom moved to rescind the motion and reconsider this item at the February 26, 1996 P&Z Board hearing. The reason for this motion is based on the information that was presented as false information in the record from the last hearing. Member Mickelsen seconded. Planning and Zoning Board Hearing January 22, 1996 Page 26 CITIZEN INPUT Sally Craig stated that she spoke at the last hearing on this item. She stated that from the onset, this has been presented as one project. She believed that an ODP needed to be looked at to understand the impact of this particular item and believed that an ODP was needed. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design and applicant, stated that based on discussion, this seems like the appropriate thing to do. Member Strom commented to Ms. Craig that the question of whether there should be an ODP or not does not bear on whether the Board should rescind the last action. What is before the Board is based on false information given to the Board when it was considered last time. The motion to rescind passed 5-0 with Member Davidson abstaining. OTHER BUSINESS Director Blanchard informed the Board that there would be a meeting February 1 to discuss workload management in the CIC Room. Also, Janet Meisel from Parks and Recreation Department, asked that she be given the opportunity to review the proposed Parks and Recreation Master Plan with the Board prior to going to City Council worksession. Member Strom suggested that this be heard at the Board's February 23 worksession. The meeting adjourned at 12:50 a.m.