08/26/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilman Williams said he was neither ready to endorse the Planning Commission's (0308) recommendation nor direct the staff to prepare findings supporting an alternative- . _ ",- action. He suggested referring the issue to a joint meeting of the Council and.,':' Planning Commission for di~cussion after there had been an opportunity.for review of - the written presentations so Council would. be in better position to made a decision. , ',,./.f." Councilman Wood said' he had heard no testimony.that would support reversal of the Commission recommendation. 'He didn't consider the question of delinquency in the area .a problem, that would be a different consideration. However, he said he would. not oppose considering additional testimony with regard to traffic counts. Council- man Williams said it was not his intent to indicate a reversal of the Commission re- commendation. What he wanted to do was to review the material. pres,ented and give. the applicant an opportunity to make his presentation and hear the Commission discuss the issue. His suggestion in no way was ,intended to deny the rezoning, he said. __ Councilman Wood supported that approach. Councilman Hershner.'indicated he' would like an opportunity to review the traffic statistics presented. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to refer the' issue back to the Planning Commission (for.joint discussion with' the Council). Councilman Murray was in favor of. the motion. He felt the information submitted by the applicant fell short of ,proving public need - not public need for housing, but public need for the zone change .}Ie -:i~J!' tnars-taf:f~.s'!re,C9_ullllerraarrori-"thaEihe:' . , proposec,Lz.oning- ~.as. in conformi ty'witlr-tne GEmera."1Rlan'-could be_a-.-ma-tter ~of inte:f::" -ptetatIon_. And~--he'l1oted other vacant R-.2-_70ued:pro-R.eit:ie"s:--in' the ,eity"'av'ailaJ;~.lg:'for - '~eve0pm~n1:. '_':::"_. ~~~- P-:'-'",,:,"~:. _.,- .-' _. . - ~--'~~:'-'""""-=;:....- -:::=- - ,/ . ' . ,,; , :, ~ Councilwom.an Campbell fel tthe ,Commission did n.ot ,have ,all .the arguments presented (iJ.361) against the zone change. Also, 'she felt the peti don prot'esting the change carrying over 400 signatures was of significance. Mr. Wood said. if the:issue"was to be further considered. then he would reserve -'comment with. regard' 'to ,housing dispersal in relation to this proj ect. Councilman McDonald took issue with the motion. He said if a~tion contrary to the Commission recommendation was 'tak_en, ;t:hen,the matter 'wo1<lld"automatical)y.._go back for joint discussion.' Mayor' Anderson interpreted intent of 'th,e motion. ~as' to eliminate the necessity for .further public 'hearing and . rep'etition . of tes.timony but allow for joint discussion. Assistant' City Attorney Long 'referred t'o'Codeproyision for public hearing should action contrary to the Commission be taken.by the Council, and in this instance he construed the motion as' something coptrary to what was recommended by the Commission. Councilwoman Beal asked whether opponents of the zone change had presented any infor- (1388) mati on at this hearing that had not been received by the Commission. She wondered why a public hearing was necessary when it appeared to her the purpose of the joint discussion was only to give the Commission the courtesy of reviewing material given '_ to the Counci 1. Mr. Saul said he thought after a hasty examination of the material submitted by Mr. Cross that there was information included which the Commission did not have. Mr. Long rea"d the section of the' Code applicable - Council action con- trary to Commission recommendation was a request for further report and joint meeting, with public notice given and full opportunity for testimony to be given. Vot.e was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried'unanimously. Short recess was taken. (1409) D. Zoning Newly Annexed Areas 1. North of Willamette River immediately east of Valley River Center to C-2 SR and Outlying Commercial Sign District (Valley River Inn area) No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by CO.uncil members. Copies of Planning Commission staff notes and minutes, of July 2, 1974 were previously furnished to Council members. Jim Saul, planner, noted that staff notes of July 2, 1974 Planning Commission ',: (1428) meeting, at which approval was recommended, analyzed how the proposed city zoning corresponded with existing use of the properties and existing County zoning, thereby procluding requirement for proof of public need and whether those proper- e' ties were best suited for that need. He said proposed sign district regulations in both instances also were'suited to existing uses. He described existing non- conforming signs in the proposed sign districts ~nd explained that because of Sign Code provisions there would be a five-year amortization period from the effective date of the sign district designation for those signs to be brought into conformance. Public hearing was opened. (1483) 301 8/26/74 - 8 1 , ., ~