01/12/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

inconsisrency; iniriation of rezoning more often comes from the Planning Cor.r.tis- sion than from the Council itself. Mr. Porter noted that initiation of rezoning usually takes place through the refinement process and, of course, property owners are not necessarily for or against. Councilman Murray was reluctant to turn all matters over to the courts for dis- position; yet he did not feel the Council well prepared or analytical on the issue at this point. He felt, tod, it would be inappropriate to use the Edge~/ood example to change priorities on other issues. Also, he wondered if the Council would be doing the residents of the area any service by taking action, recognizing it would be a fairly involved process with the outcome uncertain. Mr. Saul commented that the amount of involvement in the process depends on time, research, etc. Mayor Anderson shared Mr. Murray's concerns, wondering how long the matter would go on once started and what impact it t'/ould have on the planning function. He also tyondered which side of a law sui t tJ'Je ci ty would want to be on. However, in the interest of quick action, he thought it would seem advisable to allow the matter to go to court rather than prolonging it by hearings. He strongly recommended that Council table the issue until the next committee meeting. Councilman Bradley thought the Council should decide on the inconsistency issue and wondered where that would.fit in on the priority schedule. If Council makes a decision, he said, the parties could subsequently go to court any tolay. ~' Mr. Murray moved second by Mrs. Shirey to table the matter for one week. Mot~on carried, all council members present voting aye, excepr Councilman Bradley voting no. Councilman Haws requested staff comment on whether the city code is too restricrive t.,i th regard to zone changes. Also, w.hether the ci ty has any. recourse should a petition be destroyed by someone not in fa-vor of it before its: presentation. B. Bi-Mart, 40th and Donald - A motion was tabled to this meeting to hold a factual hearing on the Bi-Mart proposed location at 40th and Donald Streets to decide if there is an inconsistency with the 1990 Plan and current zoning, with no moratorium on the issuance of building permits during the interim. Manager explained there has been great interest in the matter (letters from residents, phone calls, etc). Mr. Saul, Planner, noted there have been many assertions made not only on what the 1990 Plan says but also that, based on the General Plan and the Baker vs. the City of Milwaulcie decision, the City of Eugene is required to take certain forms of action. In assessing the 1990 General Plan, Mr. Saul continued, it is important to go back to the formulation of that plan which was adopted in 1972. The consistent feeling at that time was that the plan was intended to provide broad guidelines for decisions and not a blueprint. '1'00, the general plan consistently talks about the need for area refinemenr studies, recognizing those studies take place over a long period of time. It was never intended that the 1990 Plan would reverse previous zoning decisions that had been based on plans in effect in 1972. The piece of property at 40th and Donald, which is now the subject of debate, was zoned C-2 in 1955 and that zoning has remained in. effect since that time. That zoning was in accord with the plan for that area at that time. If the 1990 Plan is considered as a broad guideline, problems then arise when placing it in the context of Baker vs. Milwaulcie. The 1990 Plan was adopted three years prior ro Baker vs. Milwaukie. Had it been in effecr at the time the City was considering the 1990 Plan, said Mr. Saul, it might have taken a far different form. Baker vs. Milwaulcie refers to, the Milwaukie General Plan, which is a far more detailed plan than anything Eugene has, noted Mr. Saul. Therefore, staff feels Council should be 1/12/76 - 4 ~ . Cornm 12/23/75 Approve - --