10/19/1983 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilor Holmer stated that he had also missed the September 12 meeting and had e just read the minutes from that meeting and would therefore participate in the action. Councilor Wooten said she had previously voted against the motion and again planned to vote against it. She said she, in general, concurred with the comments of Mr. Bauske. Councilor Ball said he had concerns similar to those of the Planning Commission with should and shall in the findings and conclusions. He asked what was specifically required in Section 9 of the findings. Mr. Croteau responded that the site review process would apply a number of criteria to the specific property and the specific set of plans to address the concerns of the commission and the council. He said the semantics would be lost in that type of review. He said that staff would attempt to balance the site review criteria to arrive at the best development and that staff had never viewed a great difference between should and shall. Councilor Ball said he had strong reservations about the application of the site review criteria, especially in Section 9C dealing with traffic. He said he had observed the traffic in the area and said he was not sure from the findings that his concerns with the potential generation of traffic were satisfied. He said he felt there was a substantial difference between strip commercial and strip industrial in the amount of traffic generated and that the commission was asking for trouble in adding to the confusion. City Manager Micheal Gleason said that staff had requested additional right-of- way for the third lane as each site review occurred. He asked if the third lane was present in this area. Councilor Ball responded it was not. Mr. Gleason e said the City would then require the additional setback to provide for the right-of-way. Assistant Public Works Director Don Gilman said that a special setback requirement existed for construction on the site in large developments. He added that construction in smaller sites would be more difficult. He proposed that the council deal with the setback now and with the right-of-way at some future time. Mr. Gleason clarifed that the problem east of the Fred Meyer development was due to the lack of a turn lane and that the City had been trying to require the right-of-way in each individual decision in order to build that third lane. Mr. Croteau said it was a newly created subdivision and the additional right-of- way on the north side of West 11th Avenue had been acquired. He said the site review process would set up the process to design the frontage to add the turn lane, but there was presently no time line for this process and that it was not in the Capital Improvements Program. In response to a question, Mr. Gleason said the traffic situation did not preclude development according to the site review procedure. Councilor Lindberg said that it might be appropriate to incorporate that fact in the findings. Planning Director Jim Farah commented that the council should review the purpose of the site review procedure, stating that such procedures would give direction to staff but were not the appropriate mechanism to limit development. He said the council should redesign the zone change to address this concern. e MINUTES--City Council/Planning Commission October 19, 1983 Page 4