Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- <br /> <br />Manager indicated that all the papers were in order. The <br />permit request had been reviewed by the Building Superintendent. <br /> <br />Councilman Bradley indicated concern as to what standards and <br />guidelines there were for issuing temporary permits. He wondered if <br />a temporary permit was ever issued to a business that might be <br />interested only in testing the viability of the market in a parti- <br />cular area and after the temporary permit runs out, finds that the <br />market is not viable and, therefore, does not construct its business <br />at that area. The Manager indicated that there are sections of the <br />City Code which specify time conditions in issuing the temporary <br />permits. Mr. Allen also indicated that the Council could terminate <br />the agreement if they do not construct. Mr. Allen thought that <br />banks, by state law, are required to go into business at a site <br />prior to building and that there are state laws governing the use of <br />mobile homes limiting where they can be used. Mr. Williams said his <br />understanding of the state law was that once a site for a bank <br />had been approved, the bank has two years in which to start con- <br />struction and does not have to conduct business prior to con- <br />struction. Mr. Porter indicated that he felt the state law said <br />that the business had to start on a location prior to construction <br />but they have a certain period of time in which to go into a permanent <br />facility, but the mobile home has to be temporary. <br /> <br />Mr. Haws moved seconded by Mr. Hamel that a hearing be <br />scheduled for February 14, 1977. Motion carried unanimously. <br /> <br />~Ub1iC <br />Hearing <br /> <br />VIII. Consideration of Amendment to Resolution 2344 Establishing Policy <br />Governing City Testimony <br />Copies of resolution distributed to Council <br /> <br />Mr. Williams, as a member of the Legislative Subcommittee, in- <br />dicated this resolution is being submitted with two minor changes: <br />1) that if the City Manager, City department heads, or members of the <br />boards, commissions, or subcommittees of the City desire to testify <br />before the legislative assembly of the State of Oregon or its <br />various committees, that such testimony be with approval <br />of the Council; 2) that if the testimony is not in accordance <br />with City Council's positions, the persons testifying will be <br />speaking for themselves as individuals, only. He indicated there <br />were no major changes in the resolution. <br /> <br />Councilman Haws indicated his concern over the fact that the City <br />Council feels it has a position or a viewpoint so overpowering <br />on issues that some members of commissions, for instance the <br />Women's Commission, could not take a stand contrary to City Council <br />policies. He felt this was a stifling of free speech. He indicated <br />that the City Council is not all-knowing on every position or that <br />perhaps the City Council is not correct in every position it takes. <br />Mr. Bradley indicated he was in agreement with Mr. Haws' position. <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />~~ <br /> <br />2/14/77 - 23 <br />