01/18/1984 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e In response to a question on the ingress and egress on West 7th Avenue, Ms. Jones stated that it was possible that West 7th Avenue would have limited access. She stated that the site review procedures had been placed on the property rezoning in response to these concerns. Mr. Obie stated that the General Plan diagram is not the sole factor in reviewing zone changes and that either a refinement plan is needed or the City must make an objective policy decision. Mr. Hansen stressed that the council would be creating a major commercial entity in approving the rezoning. He said he felt comfortable with allowing the expansion of the theatre, but he also felt that pressure would be great to develop commercial uses on the east side of Seneca Road if the zone change is approved. He stressed that the boundary for the commercial node must be drawn. He was concerned with what the property owners plan to do with the parcels and whether such development will be commercial or industrial. Mr. Ball did not see a danger of the domino theory, stating that the circumstances are clear and unique so that the line can be drawn. He felt the line should be drawn at 7th Avenue and Seneca Road and that it should not go east of Seneca. Mr. Barkman felt that Mr. Ballls comments relate to the comments of the Planning Commission that the line can be drawn. A northern boundary had never been defined, but this zone change could define it. He agreed with Mr. Obie that the diagram is not the sole factor; the map and the language of the General Plan give support to accepting the zone change application as a part of the commer- cial node. He agreed that the economic development issue is symbolic in that an important element of the Metropolitan Plan is predictability and consistency. He said he still felt the action of the Planning Commission was appropriate and that the traffic concerns on West 7th Avenue would be addressed by the site review procedures. He would prefer that all traffic be on Seneca Road or through Fred Meyer, not on 7th Avenue. Mr. Bauske felt the domino theory would exist if the application were approved. He said it was discussed during the Fred Meyer issue that commerci~ development would end there, but it did not. He said it is important that the Planning Commission act to preserve the industrial land base, stressing that the zone change has the potential to spillover onto the West 7th Avenue properties. He stated that he favored the original staff notes recommending denial of the application. Ms. Anderson said that roles have been reversed, explaining that she had voted for the existing use connected with the Fred Meyer property as comprising the nodal development and the use of the site review procedures to study the impact of the rezoning or industrial uses in the area. She said she still felt the rezoning is an appropriate and efficient use of the land. Ms. Schue stated that she had voted for the zone change for reasons previously expressed by Mr. Barkman and Ms. Anderson. She said it seems logical that the access through the Fred Meyer property is for commercial traffic. She felt the boundary line should be drawn at 7th Avenue and Seneca Road; she said she would not vote to increase the node beyond that point either to the north or to the east. MINUTES--City Council/Planning Commission January 18, 1984 Page 4