09/12/1983 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

He said that with these considerations in mind, the request is consistent with the Metropolitan Plan and fulfills the allocatlon of that plan. Of the second e issue, that of retaining industrial land, Mr. Saul said that the plan expresses the need to provide both commercial and industrial properties and does not give priority to one or the other. He said the third issue discussed was whether only the rezoning of developed property should be considered. He said that the only pertinent policy in the Metropolitan Plan sfeaks to the need to increase the supply of undeveloped commercial and industria properties; therefore, there is no basis on which to assert that vacant property should not be rezoned to a commercial designation based on whether the property is currently in commercial use or vacant. Mr. Saul said the fourth issue addressed the question of whether the property was designated on the plan diagram as being suitable for commercial. He said that the commercial designation on the east side of Seneca Street extends some distance east of that street on the north side of 11th Avenue and that the definition of the plan diagrOOl indicates lIit is the graphic depiction of the allocation of projected land use needs.1I Mr. Saul said that this property is clearly allocated for commercial use as based on the Metropolitan Plan, background papers, and visual observation. He sa i d tha t he believes this to be an appropriate zone change and the owner and the developer have consented to site review procedures in order to achieve the design objective of the plan. Mr. Saul urged the council to approve the request and said that he would be willing to answer any questions of the council. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Ms. Wooten asked Ms. Mulder to clarify the split vote of the Planning Commission. Ms. Mulder stated that it is difficult to represent the split vote. She sai d e the dilemma of the Planning Commission was in weighing what to give emphasis to in the various goals of the Metropolitan Plan. She sai d her personal emphasi s was to listen to limiting strip commercial use, stating that this issue goes back to when the definition of 1-2 zoning was changed. She said that many of the rezonings have been cleaning up the problems that were caused by limiting commercial uses. Ms. Mulder said the other two commissioners looked at the property being in the allocation for commerci al usage wi thi n the Metropol i tan Pl an. Mr. Lindberg asked staff for some explanation of their recommendation for approval of the request. Ms. Jones said that the lines are not clearly delin- eated between commercial and industrial usage in the area. She said that staff had determined that commercial usage should stop at West 11th Avenue and Seneca Street, where the Fred Meyer store is presently located. He said that one must look at either no development at the shopping center or a strip along the frontage along We st 11th Avenue. Mr. Croteau added that in previous cases the council considered the extent of commercial development to the west of the Fred Meyer development; however, this request deals with a zone change to the east. He said these previous cases never discussed the property to the east of the Fred Meyer property. Mr. Saul said that there two items on which he wished to comment. In regard to strip commercial usage, he said the view is that the Metropolitan Plan enunciates it to be an 00 sol ute evi 1 to be avoided it at all costs. Mr. Saul says that the plan, while not encouraging the use, recognizes areas that are characterized by e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 12. 1983 Page 10