Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- <br /> <br />Councilman Murray, commenting from his experience with this issue as a member of <br />the Joint Parks Committee, said he would have to take issue that there was no <br />inconsistency between this development and the South Hills study. The development <br />where it is proposed does have the effect of breaking up the intent of buffering <br />between urban and rural development. He also took some exception to the practice <br />of contouring sewer lines which he said was not specifically addressed in the study. <br />And he said he was not sure the section of the study stating its general purpose <br />was dealt with. However, even with these reservations, he said he would have to <br />concede the South Hills study did not specifically prohibit this Southridge de- <br />velopment, so it was a judgmental question after all. <br /> <br />Vote was taken on the motion to approve and include findings <br />and conditions as stated. Motion carried, Council members <br />Murray, Keller, Beal, Williams Hamel, and Shirey voting aye; <br />Council members Bradley and Haws voting no. <br /> <br />Councilwoman Beal left the meeting. <br /> <br />D. Vacations <br />1. Dillard Road and Fox Hollow Road intersection and renaming streets accordingly <br />(City)(SV 74-4) - There were no objections to carrying this item over to the <br />March 10, 1975 Council meeting. <br /> <br />2. Portion of Jessen Drive from Ohio Street 176.25 feet west (Cole)(SV 74-5) <br />Recommended by the Planning Commission on November 25, 1974 on the basis <br />that there was no further public use of the right-of-way. <br /> <br />Public hearing was opened. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Don Cole, 2298 Ohio Street, said he owned property adjacent to that under con- <br />sideration for vacation and saw no reason why the right-of-way should not be <br />vacated. <br /> <br />Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony. <br /> <br />Council Bill No. 739 - Vacating portion of Jessen Drive from Ohio Street <br />176.25 feet west was read by council bill number and <br />title only, there being no Council members present requesting that it be read <br />in full. <br /> <br />Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be read the second time <br />by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that <br />enactment be considered at this time. <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />Councilman Haws asked about the property to the west of this parcel and whether <br />bike paths in this area had been contemplated. Also, whether the vacation re- <br />quest had been referred to the Active Bethel Citizens. Manager replied that <br />the property to the west was open farm land and noted that a IS-foot utility <br />easement had been retained in the vacation ordinance, whether this would be <br />used as a bike parth also was unknown becuase the property to the west was <br />undeveloped. When Mr. Haws suggested delay in the vacation process to give <br />the opportunity to review the situation, Manager called attention to the <br />ability of any council member to delay passage of an ordinance by voting no <br />on second reading. <br /> <br />Mrs. Shirey said she would abstain from voting because she had not been on the <br />Council when the vacation request was first brought on. <br /> <br />8/ <br /> <br />2/24/75 - 13 <br />