03/14/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Lieua1len saw a problem in the area and was interested in LTD's position and also interested in bike facilities, but he had faith in 4i' the development of the proposed project by the Public Works Department and was going to vote to approve the motion. Mr. Delay noted serious concerns about the proposal as it stands and the questions that had been raised by the people in pUblic testimony. He felt a hard look at the future development of the area was needed, including mass transit, car pooling, buses, and providing incentives for reducing automobile use. He could see the need for making improvements, but felt there had been a lack of consideration of alternatives for the project. Mr. Bradley he did not feel there was a safety hazard in the area, but a concern for inconvenience, noting that the concern for traffic congestion had to be balanced against livability in the area and he leaned toward more livability, saying there was a need for alternatives to the proposed project. Mayor Keller mentioned this was not a major arterial, but a major intersection and there was certainly a need shown for improvement with congestion that occurred at that intersection. He said there were going to be more and more people in the area, and that pollution improvement as part of the plan in keeping the cars from stacking up seemed to him to be a viable alternative. He was delighted that LTD was invovled in the planning process. He said the City Council had been facing this problem since 1975 and the problem has worsened considerably since that time. He noted that public input can still be derived before the final plan is approved. Vote was taken on the motion which passed with Williams, Obie, Lieua1len, and Hamel voting aye, and Haws, Delay, and Bradley voting no. e III-B-1 F. Appeal Whitson Minor Partition (M 76-105); Panhandle Policy Manager noted that the appellants were William D. Kirkpatrick, et a1. Planning Commission had approved the Whitson minor partition October 13, 1976, with an appeal submitted from that action and considered by the Planning Commission on January 24, 1977. After review of the testimony submitted, the Planning Commission voted to uphold the staff's determina- tion for the minor partition. He said a subsequent appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission had been submitted to the City Council and materials had been distributed to Council. Mr. Saul said the Planning Commission's decision was made based upon the determina- tion that the proposed partition met standards adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council for evaluation of panhandle lot proposals: The original lot must contain a minimum of 14,000 square feet and this original parcel contained over 20,000 square feet; a structure on the rear lot must be separated by at least 20 feet from structures on the front line, and the existing lot in Parcell is located 55 feet from the proposed parcel line; structures on the lots created through the panhandle lot process should be located so as to maximize separation, e March 14, 1977--Page 16 ~l~