02/23/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

jedionable was really nof--the applicant's concern. With regard to. additional traffic, Mr. O'Reilly said it already exists, generated by other sources. The reason for neighborhood centers, he said, was to provide shopping areas to which people could walk rather than drive. He added that there were no services other e than groceries available within a half mile of 19th and .Jefferson, and that what was proposed was a "large mom and pop store," not a supermarket. He felt the proposed use did fall within the general guidelines of the 1990 Plan, and as long as that was true, it would comply with the Plan. He added that the Commission's de- termination that the proposal did not comply with the Plan was contrary not only to the staff recommendation but also to what the Plan itself says. Councilman Murray asked for an outline of available commercial services within a ten- or twelve-block area of 19th and Jefferson. Also, for some comparison of services available to that neighborhood with services available to other neighbor- hoods throughout the city. Mr. Saul cited commercial uses available at the Little Big Y at 19th and Jefferson, to the west at 18th and Chambers, to the east on Willamette along 18th, 28th and Friendly, 29th and Willamette. With the exception of some central "area neighborhoods, he said, this particular area was probably as well served as any residential area, better served than some such as the Bethel area and portions of the Willakenzie area. Mr. Hamel moved second by Mr. Keller to refer the issue back to the Planning Commission for further review in joint session with the Council. Councilman Bradley wondered if the action would be appropriate, whether it could be sent back to the Planning Commission without a reversal of the Commission's posi- tion. He thought perhaps it might be referred to the Planning Commission for another vote in view of the tie vote resulting in denial of the zone change. e Mr. Bradley moved for referral to the Planning Commission for another vote. There was no second, and in further discussion on procedure, the motion was withdrawn. Councilman Williams saw two options - uphold the Commission position and deny the rezoning request, or indicate intent to rezone the property which would take the issue to a joint meeting of the Council and Commission. Councilman Murray said he was opposed to the rezoning primarily because the applicant had the burden of proving public need and he didn't feel that the applicant had done that. Neither, in Mr. Murray's opinion, had need been shown in planning staff notes or Commission minutes. He said that existing commercial use does not automatically provide proof of need. The strongest argument he had seen in staff notes with regard to public need, he said, was that the existing business was a successful one, and that didn't prove there was public need for further business. He was also con- cerned about extension of commercial uses along 19th. Since the neighborhood was already well provided with commercial services when compared to other neighborhoods, he said, granting the rezoning would be inappropriate. Councilman Keller was in favor of the zone change. He recognized the difficulty of defining "need" in terms of normal application, but he felt the problem primarily was with the piece of property itself and conflicting zones on the one parcel. He said he liked the idea of small neighborhood commercial areas convenient for pedestrians, and this type of use would not generate the "supermarket" type traffic. _, He thought the proposed use would fit the interpretation of a neighborhood shopping ,., center. Also, that the Commission basically felt the property should be rezoned. 2/23/76 - 4 96" ,