|
<br /> The thrust of testimony from those speaking in favor of the C-2 zoning was that
<br /> the area ,in question was never intended to be used for other than'commercial
<br /> purposes and commercial zoning in that area would be in keeping with the General
<br /> . Plan; a Montgomery Ward store at that location would enhance the retail merchandis-
<br /> ing outlets now located there; mass transit is not being ignored in asking for
<br /> additional parking space because of the regional nature of the Center and 'its re-
<br /> quirement for automobile parking space to accommodate those living outside,the
<br /> mass transit service area; customers and employes of Montgomery Ward would benefit
<br /> from a new, larger outlet which cannot be accommodated in its present location;
<br /> Montgomery Ward will close its present store by January 1975 'regardless of the
<br /> outcome of the present rezoning issue.
<br /> Manager read a letter from Carol J. Coggins (Mrs. J. W.), 499 Walnut Lane,
<br /> (Exhibit 24), asking favorable action on the rezoning, and a telegram from
<br /> George S. Fenn, 2544 Washington Street, (Exhibit- 25) asking Council approval of
<br /> the Commission's recommendation to deny the-request.
<br /> ,-
<br /> Howard Bonnett; Planning Commission member, said the Commission's recommendation
<br /> to deny the rezoning was made without having before it some of the relevant in-
<br /> formation presented at this Council hearing.., He felt it important' that if the
<br /> Planning Commission is to fulfill its role as an advisory body to the Council, a
<br /> recommendation should be based on the complete record. For that reason, he sug-
<br /> c, gested referral of the request: back, to the CommisSion before Council action - either
<br /> ,~::: -for duprication"bT"'this hearing or for Commission decision with regard to whether
<br /> I it wishes to hear the additional testimony. He deferred-further' comment until
<br /> e ' after other opponents had an opportunity to speak.
<br /> ~,
<br /> Mel Jackson, 2865 Ferry Str,eet, member of the Willamette Greenway Association;
<br /> Otto Poticha,,1820 Kona Str'eet; "Joy, Ballinger" 3715 Donald Street opposed 'the
<br /> zone change. ,Mr; ,Jackson's primary-, interest was not so much in opposition to the
<br /> rezoning"as "it was in preservation, of access to ,the River'and 'a greenway'along the
<br /> River, and general environment in that area. Mr. Poticha felt the expansion of
<br /> Valley River would create a density which-would more properly beC-3 rather than
<br /> C~2 and that rezoning to allow that added commercial use ~ould contradict !he
<br /> Council'-s creation of- a downtown ,free 'parking district. He "felt ,one burden of
<br /> proof, placed upon/the application-should be that there is rio other-suitable com-
<br /> mercial, land available for relocation ,of Montgomery,Ward. He cited cost statistics
<br /> given at this hearing and Jsaid he felt Montgomery Ward and'Lipman Wolfe would fare
<br /> better economically were they to purchase the land necessary for their operations
<br /> in the central business district,,'thereby,'helping to build, up that area of the
<br /> community. Mr. Poticha could see ,no reason for continuing commercial zoning to al-
<br /> IGW expansion, of, the Valley ,'River :Center simply because: of-its - existence' in that
<br /> area. ':He said if the additional -area was: knowingly purchased as AGT land, perhaps
<br /> .t4!{t wbuld be better kept- as AGT. He thought the testimony in defense of the parking
<br /> areas was presented as a-result of Planning Commission- suggestion to delete some
<br /> of the proposed parking 'space.- -
<br /> - Mrs. Ballinger said the goal of the developers was not to provide a view of the
<br /> River. She ,felt that' there-,'was no need for expansion of merchandising facilities
<br /> and that the requested use would be a radical change from the present zoning. She
<br /> "(' felt the'argumen~not-valid,thatthe property-be rezoned-commercial just'because
<br /> I it was contiguous to comrriercial 'zoFl_ing~- .'. . ',','
<br /> - " I ".' > ~ ~
<br /> Mayor Anderson declared this portion of the public hearing closed and pointed out
<br /> alternative decisions which could be made by the Council - action approving or
<br /> denying: the- rez0ning, 'continue the -publichearing~:o:b'refer the'issue"back to the
<br /> PlanningCommission.-' ',He suggested in view 'of -probable 'desirabilitTof consultation
<br /> with the planning and legal staffs that the matter"becca'rried over, to.a subsequent
<br /> Council meeting.
<br /> -" :,,1 , . "'. - -. . ".- . . " f, .. ,- , , ,'- . . . . ..
<br /> Mr;: GleavesJraised-a':-point -of order, saying.- the applicant: should have the right of
<br /> rebuttal. The ,'Mayor :'was :concerned with ':the late 'hour~" saying he ,was trying to
<br /> determine prdcedure~' wnethertotakefurther test imony o'r carry:.i t over ,to another
<br /> meeting.! ,~,im:,'Korth, of the City' At-torney '-s -office. said it wouldbe:the -prerogative
<br /> of' the ,Council ,to, de"termine. whether "to temporarily termina.te:the - heariFlg 'at a
<br /> certain point.
<br /> f " , - - -.' '.'-
<br /> e CouFlcilwoman Campbell asked the Assistant City Attorney if at this point she would
<br /> be-fable to take a positicSn,'ori,,:this''issue;'-since she -attended'PlanrdngCommission
<br /> hearings on 'the request p'riorto her'-knowledge,'of the'ruling in the Fasano case
<br /> which, states, that Counc.il,-members :should, not attend Commission hearings on' issues
<br /> which, will' be b"efore ,the Council :for' decision'. Mri-Korth answered.tha~,iT she in-
<br /> tended ..to ,abstain from voting she should not participate any -further' in this dis-
<br /> cussion. !. Mrs'.:,Campbel1 said that although she did riot 'want to abstain, she would
<br /> on-the ,advice' of the City Attorn~y" Councilwoman Beal expressed the view that the
<br /> " f 2-4b 8/13/73 - 3
<br />
|