01/12/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- ,e . cautious in judging whether Eugene is dealing with a Baker vs. Milwaukie type of situation. Too, staff feels the general plan does not necessarily imply that the location of a Bi-Mart store at 40th and Donald conflicts with the characterization of a neighborhood shopping center. Mr. Bradley referred to staff's earlier comments that it was a debatable issue, feeling they now seemed to be taking a definite stand: Planning Director said Council is faced with a whole series of judgments; since reasonable people can reach different judgment decisions, the issue therefore becomes somewhat debatable. Staff, however, feels the zoning is appropriate and that Council should not take steps to rezone or withhold issuance of a building permit. Mr. Bradley voiced concern that, though the case of Baker vs. Milwaukie provided the law, staff is now saying they do not like that law. He suggested looking at it in terms of inconsistency and letting the courts decide it once again. If the court says it is the law, it should be accepted and a factual determination should then be made whether there is an inconsistency at 40th and Donald and, if so, take the next step which would be to hold a rezoning hearing. Mr. Spickerman, City Prosecutor, responded to Mr. Bradley that he is not contending Baker vs. Milwaukie is the law in this case and that the staff is avoiding it. It is simply not that clear-cut an issue, he added. Mr. Williams thought legislative history should play some part, and he is not sure that Baker vs. Milwaukie overrules the history of the plan. To say that background is meaningless surely would not be the intent of the Supreme Court of the State of Orego. If it is, then it would seem there are two choices - scrap the Plan and start,_w~_tl1_,o.ll~. ~~_f.~_e:_c:!~ng reali ty, or go to court. It appears to Mr. WilliamS that the -situation has to follow the historical plan of following the guidelines. Fredric R. Merrill, Attorney, 3940 Mill Street, expressed confusion with the staff's position and suggested that a decision must be made. Council should not let a decision on the application of the 1990 Plan to a zoning matter go by the boards without a full hearing and consideration of the issues involved, he added. Since a building permit is pending Eor the Bi-Mart store, no decision by Council is really a decision to proceed with construction. Mr. Merrill said the issue is not an isolated one but one that will affect the entire community. Letting people sue by doing nothing is a bad position for staff to take. The issue must be decided by rreans of a public hearing, he said, with suspension of the building permit in tpe interim. Phyllis Earley, 3945 Mill, stated that the developer of the shopping center, in 1956, outlined the kinds of stores that should be a part of the Edgewood Shopping Center. The current developer reiterated the sarre thing in 1964. Listed were such types of outlets as a drug store, bank, beauty parlor, etc. but no mention was ever made of a large store such as a Bi-Mart. Also, she said, when the area was zoned C-2 in 1955, it was a 7-acre plot. Half of the 7 acres has been turned into apartments. That original' concept of C-2 zoning r has now been reduced to a little over 2Js acres. The developers have changed the concept of this plot of commercial zoning; their actions state they are not willing to conform to the original concept for the area. Mary Simpson, 3990 Donald, felt it necessary to deal with the 1990 Plan now so that, in 1990, the city will look as was intended in that plan. She feels the residents of the Edgewood area are offering what they believe to be a precedent setting case, that they are doing their ci vic duty, and tha t they should be afforded the opportunity to speak at a public hearing. She added they respect the abilities of the planners but feel the merits of the case should be dealt with, not simply the issue of whether the case should be heard at all. 7 1/12/76 - 5