12/20/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. III. Ordinances Council Bill No. 1234--Rezoninq to C-2 SR the area south of south- east corner of 29th Avenue-and Wi 11 amette Street (A & W) (Z 76-20), read the first time September 13 and held, lacking unanimous consent for a second reading at that time, read the second time September 20 and denied, referred to a joint meet- ing of the Council and Planning Commission, Commission reaffirm- ing recommendation to approve, read again on December 13 and delayed because of procedural Question, was read by Council bill number and title only, there beinq no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Haws raised a procedural auestion. He noted his opposition to the rezoning based upon the facts and wanted to make a single motion that would resolve the issue. He asked whether, if he were to move to deny and the motion passed, the matter would be concluded. Joyce Benjamin, assistant city attorney, affirmed that would be the result for one year, at which time the applicant could reapply for a zone change. In response to a Question from Mr. Bradley, Mr. Haws noted that last time the Council was deadlocked in a tie vote the motion was ruled to have failed. Mr. Haws restated his Question that if he moved to approve the Council bill and it failed, would the matter be concluded. Again the attorney affirmed the earlier rulinq. I -~ Mr. Haws moved seconded by Mr. Murray that findings supporting the zone change as set out in the Planning Commission Staff Notes of July 26, 1976, be adopted by reference thereto; and that the bill be approved and given fi na 1 pa ssage. Mr. Haws noted he was goinQ to vote against the motion. Mr. Bradley also expressed his intention to vote against the motion because he felt approval of the zone change would deviate from the Council's policy to refuse to extend commercial development further on south Willamette. He considered this request to extend the zoning a major deviation from the policy and felt that a thorough study of the impact of such a policy change should be made before any rezoning occurred. He noted he was uncertain how he would vote on the matter following such a study. Mr. Hamel noted the request was not adding any new businesses to the area but rather was merely removing a house which the applicant owned to allow the business to expand. Mr. Ha ws fe 1 t there was some Quandary about the deqree of "public need" demonstrated in this matter. He felt there were times when a private need existed but not a public need and that he did not see a public need in this instance. e IoILf ~.....; r\ 1 t + r.. ~ 1 J I r") n J"7 L ('\