01/12/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. '. e. munity or regional type use. a neighborhood type store. Mr. f.lurray called for other examples of neighborhood use. Mr. Saul replied th.ft, \~'" to his knowledge, this is the first location of a Bi-Mart or similar store in a" ..'.~~. neighborhood commercial area, subject to one clarification - that being the, problem., of assessing what type of store Bi-11art really is. There are any number Of stap'da.~as that can be used to assess. For instanc.g, he said, there is less square footag~,j.,~, the proposed Bi-Mart than in the Safewar} store in the same Center. " _.:. Staff evaluation is that Bi-Mart could be considered Hr. Murray wondered about otJ-.er instanct:'s of C-2 zoning that would allow a Bi-' ~ :,~:":' Mart used as neighborhood commercial. f./r. Saul noted one instance - 11 th and ", -' City view - where zoning was changed frem M-2 to C-2. Another area of debate, '-;. ~-) ~~ ' he added, would be the Coburg Plaza whioh is classified as C-2. It would be community commercial in the Plan. He nated that the River Road Bi-Mart and the 18th and Chambers Bi-Mart are both in areas zoned C-2. Whether 'those areas con- flict with the Plan is a debatable issue, according to Mr. Saul. .'7t: As to possible courses of action, Manager noted it would be expensive no ~atter what is done. As he understands it, a decision should be made whether to take an active role and ferret out the conflicts with the General Plan, which are a great many. Mr. Murray said there are parts of the city where zoning seems clearly in violation of the Plan. There has been much controversy for years, and he felt a need to get it all in perspective. John Porter, planning director, commented on the impossibility of accomplishing refinement plans as quickly as desired. For instance, he said, there is a major conflict on the west side of the central business district which is now being addressed. It is staff's feeling that deficiencies need to be addressed in as comprehensive a manner as possible. Councilman Bradley wondered if the zoning issues were debatable, who was re- sponsible for resolving that debate, and if it wouldn't be better for the Council to do it instead of a court of law. Mr. Saul explained that an allegation was being made that the case of Baker vs. the city of Milwaukie (zoning should be i:1 accordance with a general plan) applied to the Edgewood case. Planning is saying it is merely an allegation, better determined in a court of law. Mr. Bradley asked where the appropriate response should come from if there is an ~ 9 inconsistency between zoning and a plan. Mr. Saul answered that the obvious pla~e;.~',!~ would be at the Ci ty Council level. l\fr. Bradley thought perhaps then the Council should hear the issue to decide if there was an inconsistency so that, once re-,~ : solved, decisions could be made on the proper course of action. He wondered, too; if the decision in the Baker vs. Milwaukie case said a city is forced to down- zone or did it address only the issue of upzoning to comply. Mr. Spickerman said that, assuming a conflict was found and the court did order Council to re- zone the 40th and Donald area, it would be downzoning. When talking ~bout a Council decision on whether a conflict exists, his reaction was that a decision would have to be made by the court since it was a legal question. The court, he said, is not compelled to adopt a council's opinion. .;~.." .. ~. ~ "J :-: .. ~F..:.1 Mr. Bradley wondered what criteria is used by a city council to decide to ini- ,'[':,':':'! tiate rezoning when a property owner does not request it. ..::s .,'. Mr. Bradley moved second by Mr. Haws to schedule a hearing to decide if there is an inconsistency between the 40th and Donald zoning and the General Plan, with no moratorium on issuance of building permits in the interim. Mr. Saul noted that there is no written criteria governing Council initiation of, _ _ zone changes in the absence of the property owner's consent. Council initiation ~ normally occurs, he said, when the:=-e is a perception either of a problem or em ,5 1/12/76 - 3 ~, ,~~.5