01/12/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

Rick Cleveland, Attorney, 975 Oak, speaking on behalf of his client, Breeden Brothers, submitted that no public hearing is warranted. They feel the installation of the Bi-Mart is permissible under the present zoning classificationk that the paranount considerations of reduced traffic, reduced air pollution, reduced energy consumption and pronotion of mass transi t all indicate installation would be appropriate. 'J:.raffic flow would be reduced, added Mr. Cleveland, since residents would not have to travel as far - for instance to 29th and Willamette - to purchase staples other than food. Too, since there is a Safeway store in the Edgewood center, it would be of great convenience to have both lines of goods in the same area. Mr. Cleveland concluded by saying that public hearings should be held only when there is a denonstrated requirement for action. To do so when there is not a requirement just increases the burden on staff and council alike. He suggests that concerns for clarifying the 1990 Plan be referred to those involved in the process of recommending amendments to the 1990 Plan. - James Mooney, Attorney, expressed desire for a public hearing on the question. : The wisdom of having a Bi-Mart in the Edgewood area should be discussed, he said. Mr. Bradley noved seconded by Mrs. Shirey to hold a public hearing to deterndne if the zoning at 40th and Donald is consistent with the 1990 Plan and, if inconsistent, initiate a rezoning hearing or a plan amendment hear~ng.to correct the inconsistency. Comm , 1:./7/76 Approye Mr. Keller wondered if this avenue is appropriate - what kind of precedent would be set. Mr. Bradley responded that it is up to the Ci ty Council, as the governing body of the City, to give the residents of the Edgewood area a hearing. He does not feel that decision should be transferred to a judge. Mr. Spickerman noted that, ,if there were a determination by the Council, after . a. hearing~ that there was a conflict' and zone cJ?,ange wa,s desired~, i't: would then be up to the Planning ComnLission to consider it. - Mr. Saul noted, in answer to a question by Mr. Keller, that the two basic options are to hold a public hearing or go to court. Mr. Williams expressed reluctance to vote .on the matter at this time. He would like to see an analysis by staff of possible ramifications - one being what the implications would be if the City said zoning in effect for 20 years on an existing developed piece of property was wrong. \ Mr. Murray wondered if the notion by Mr. Bradley included the option that Council, at the end of the hearing, might take no action, to which Mr. Bradley responded affirmatively. Mr. Bradley mentioned another possibility - going to court with the developer and the residents of the area and asking for an advisory type of opinion. Vote was taken on the notion to hold public hearing,which carried, all Council members present voting aye except Mr. Haws voting no. Mr. Bradley raised a question on the legality of imposing a moratorium on the building permi t issuance pending outcome of the hearing. Mr. Spickerman answered it would be legal but the question then becomes whether the property owner would start a law suit in the meantime. Obviously, the next consideration after imposing a rroratorium is whether the building permit has been rightfully Ai withheld. Manager noted it would be necessary to pass an ordinance to W' establish a moratorium. In answer to a question from Mr. Murray, Public Works Director noted that to his knowledge this procedure had never taken place before. 1/12/76 ~ 6 8