|
<br />Council should have the- right to overrule, any decision '':Thich ,woulq force.a Council
<br />member to abstain from voting on an issue simply because of attendance at previous
<br />hearings or because of reading about an issue to come before them.
<br />
<br />Mayor Anderson. brought the discussion backto.the question of whether the hearing .'
<br />,wp.uld be continued now or carried over. Further discussion ',resulted .in consensus
<br />that rebuttal would be heard this evening and then the public hearing closed.
<br />Mr. Williams expressed a desire to.carry the matter over to given an opportunity
<br />for study, of the material, presented to this time and to give the Planning Commission
<br />opportunity to make a formal request, if.theyso. desire, for referral back,to the
<br />Commission. Manager noted joint meeting between the Council and Commission scheduled
<br />August 20 on another issue at which time the matter of- prpcedure' could be'- discussed.
<br />
<br />. . "0 _ . _ . _ _.. ..... _ _ _ ". .
<br />__ M~:.: G~.~av~:3: _ill_ r,ep_llt,t_<:il p0ip.:t~d ou:t that - the Council, makes the ultimate ,decision
<br />and he felt that decision should.,be based,on testimony heard by it in open-public
<br />hearing. He said the hearing already held before the Planning Commission was fairly
<br />-' extensive. . Applicant was I aware that the Commission had.. indica,ted support of the
<br />1990-_ Plan-- and that-" if it approved this request there would probably be conditions.
<br />Therefore,- the applicant's presenta:tion at. that le:v~l was addressed"t9those condi-
<br />tions. _After denial was recommended by the Commission; he' said, presentation was
<br />prepared to fill. what was indicated by. the Commission to be needed-.- Mr.. Gleaves
<br />added that the Commission's,recommendation on this issue was contrary,t9 its recom-
<br />mendation on May 21,1973 on request to rezone for co~ercialuse the Hosey property
<br />-north of the Valley-River Center. . He entered for the record as Exhibit 29 minutes
<br />of the May 21, 1973 Commission meeting.,.. He said there was no moratorium intended _
<br />on development in this area because of any studies underway and that rezoning cannot ~
<br />be denied solely to control competition. He said to deny this requ~st because of the
<br />parking issue would be contrary to action setting up the downtown free parking,
<br />which in effect encourages the use of autos rather than mass transit. He argued
<br />that the General Plan language supports commercial zoning of the subject property _
<br />it would supply residents' needs for a variety of goods and services and a major area
<br />of employment, both deemed vital to the metropolitan area.. He said.applicants have
<br />sh~wn that the,proposed zoning is in accordance with the, General Plan, and-that there
<br />is a need for goods and services which will be made available.- He offered as
<br />Exhibit 27 an article. from the -Eugene Register~Guard, July 20, 1973 is-sue , to sub-
<br />stantiate the argum~nt that employment is needed in other than the forestry and
<br />housing industries.. He suggested ,that should Ward's, look for other property now
<br />zoned for_commer~~~l use as recommended, .the ultimate result, might well be another
<br />regional center in addition to the downtown core and Valley Riv~r. .- '
<br />
<br />Mr<'~Steidie answered-M~:Pot{cha's statement that applicant should prove there is:mo
<br />e-_ --,O!~~I?~~~~ial?~e~_s:~~~~~<:~a~.:.lari.d, ,saying proof of ' public .need is required, not land
<br />use. He took exception to Ms. Ballinger.' s statement thatblaekmailwas--used, re-
<br />ferring to Ward's ,contention that the downtown store would be closed by January 1975.
<br />He said it was a fact that the store would be closed by that time, rega~dless of the
<br />zoning decision. ,...
<br />I ~
<br />T~er'e being-no further testimony presented, Mayor declared the:_~ublic hearing closed.
<br />,." ...,.,
<br />, , -
<br />- ,
<br />Discussionfollowed,on whether to refer the matter back .to the PlanniDg,Commission.
<br />Consensus was that technical and legal testimonypresent~d at this hearing should
<br />be made available to the Planning Commission so that its advisory role could be ful-
<br />filled on the basis of all material presented. .. ,I
<br />
<br />'"
<br />
<br />Mrs. Beal movedseconded,by Mr. Williams to refer the issu,e back ,to,the
<br />Planning Commission in order that they may have th~ benefit of new evidence
<br />heard at this meeting.
<br />
<br />Councilman Williams suggested the more appropriate procedure might be to hold for
<br />.tw9 weeks ~o allow informal discussion of the matter with the Planning'Commission,
<br />thereby avoiding further public hearing. Mr. Korth noted recent enactment of an
<br />ordinance which requires ,joint discussion of an issue in the event Council takes
<br />action contrary to 'Cl, Commission recommendation; He felt there would be:some pre-
<br />cedent if, the issue were simply re,ferred back to the, Commission .for',reconsideration.
<br />
<br />Mr. Bonnett suggested that he prepare a written copy of his statement and a brief
<br />sllmm~y ofthe-ne~ evi~e~c~pre~~nted_tothe Council to be circulated to the Com- ~
<br />mission members prior to the August, 20. joint meeting. He felt ,this would provide an .~=--
<br />. ...- ., '. . . __ . . ~ . - - o. ~ _ _. __
<br />"opp.o:r.!un~~y :fg,r _ '!,l:1_~_Qo~mJssion an~_ Council' together to decide procedure. Mr. Gleaves
<br />objected strongly to this,.saying any decision should be made-on testimony ,heard
<br />directly, not from a written summary. He said it would be contrary to the Council's
<br />own ordinance for joint discussion to take place unless the Council. reached a deci-
<br />sion contrary to that of the Commission. Under the present ordinance, he said,
<br />there is ~o requirement that. the same evidence pres~nted, to the~Council has to be
<br />
<br />
<br />"2..41 8/13/73 - 4
<br />
|