07/23/1979 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. of an ordinance it has enacted or the protection of an historically important part of the City should be realized. The only effect on the e private interest is that the development plans would be subject to design review process. Dustin Pozner, 1891 Harris Street, said he did not believe the Council should make this particular valid permit application, undergo the historic review process, in East Skinner Butte area. He feels that to do otherwise would be contrary to current City practices and would amount to changing the rules in the middle of the game. He said it would be a dangerous precedent to set if the Council selectively enforced the City's past informal policy of approving applications under the Code that was existing at the time of application. Furthermore, he strongly encouraged the Council to formalize that policy into the Code. Mr. Pozner said he was in favor of design review for all new projects in the area, but he felt that to be consistent with past City policy, there was a need in this issue to make an exception. Karen Holt, 341 Adams Street, said she was a lawyer representing David and Martha Filer and Robert Gray in a lawsuit that has necessitated this hearing. She said she was here not only as a lawyer for these people, but also as a private citizen interested in the issues raised by this case. Because the laws enacted are presumed to be in the public interest, Ms. Holt said the law is also presumed to apply to all citizens when they go into effect. The historic landmark ordinance was enacted on April 11 with an emergency clause. She believes this is a land-use legislation and a kind of zoning ordinance. The only way a citizen can escape the new - legislation is by establishing that they had a prior non-conforming use in the area and they shouldn't be subject to the new law. The Oregon courts set very strict standards for non-conforming users and the standards are, according to Ms. Holt, that the parties need to have valid permits at the time the new laws are enacted and they need to have a substantial interest in proceeding under the old laws. She said usually this interest is evidenced by substantial construction. She said that, in this issue the architects Unthank, Seder, Poticha, who wish to develop this property, did not have valid permits at the time the law was passed and the only expendi- tures that they had made at the time the law was passed were in having their plans approved by the Building Department. She didn't think the Oregon courts would protect their use, given the fact they had not met the criteria for non-conforming use. With regard to the first ordinance before the Council, Ms. Holt said she felt that if the ordinance were enacted, the Council would be surrendering in part the power to enact laws for the public welfare. She also said that by enacting this ordinance, it would enable anyone who has the forethought to submit an application far in advance of some pending land use legislation to avoid the Council's legislation. She felt the language of the second ordinance was unclear. She also believes the Council might have to contend with other land owners in the area if the e 7/23/79--5 3~