Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Minut.es of Regular Council Meeting <br />p'age Five <br /> <br />May 27, 1980 <br /> <br />Woodburn said there aYe some statements made here that "do not <br />hold water'''. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />1. Encouraging Expansion .. doesn' t think Council <br />is encouraging expansion; personally feels there <br />is almost nothing he would vote for further on <br />that campus, because anything he can think of <br />(w~thout specifics before him) would s~~ear to <br />be deleterious more than advantageous to tbe entire <br />area; therefore, he would not be "encouraging" <br />expansion at this time. <br /> <br />Woodburn referred to some problems that ~~ght arise under the <br />present non-conforming situation; asked whatwauld happen if <br />perhaps the powerhouse had to be completely overhauled (over <br />50% of its value), because of environmental pollution regulations - <br />wouldn't be allowed under the present ordinance, If our sewers <br />backed up, we couldn't put outhouses in there, ate,; feels there <br />might be some changes that could work for the betterment of the <br />community as a ..,a.le - they'd be unable to make them '"U;hout some <br />change in the ordinance. <br /> <br />2. Another statement made earlier was that the <br />Council ie "running scared of a Supreme Court <br />decision": said he can't imagine what could <br />be nless the case"l has never beea scared of <br />~he Supreme Court and we shouldn't be scared. <br />They ere deciding for ell of us supposedly, <br />but more than that, the issue is not before <br />us now, that is all pest and there is no <br />reason for fear, <br /> <br />3, Another statement was that Council is giving <br />the colleges "equal treatment"; thinks Council <br />would only be giving them "equal initial treat- <br />ment" - not e'pl,~l treatment in the final result <br />necessarily; would be ~iviag them equal consid- <br />eration - an equal stiilrt; final treatment is <br />not equal necessarily and doesn't in any way <br />have to be. <br /> <br />4. Another item which Woodburn states as bother- <br />some is that "we have no specifics for dauial"; <br />feels this may possibly be a defect: of the PUD: <br />feels Council has always been responsive to <br />neighborhood wishes; can't imagine future Coun- <br />ciJawill react differently; feels the Council <br />is our protection and is also charged with <br />"fairness iI.. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Crepeau stated he has all the intentions of carrying out the dictates <br /> <br />of the court, but, on advice of ~ou~8el, ~ilJ.' <br />i .. " vote against this <br />mot OD. Crepeau referred to Lynden's letter. <br /> <br />Lynden suggested that perhaps it was Attorney Regnier's letter that <br />the Mayor was referring to; explained that it was Lynden who suggested <br />this approach; feels it Ii more flexible way of handling a development <br />such as Ii college, which is an ever-evolving project; explained that <br />the PUD Hall designed to give a more thorough treatl"'"l,t to those uses <br />which are more complex; Special Use Permit essentially single purpose <br />special uses; suggested this approach with the concurrence of the <br />Plsnner and the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Motion did not carry (Wingert, Crichton, Woodburn voting in favor; <br />Crepeau, Hanson voting in OPPOSition). <br /> <br />-5- <br />