06/26/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Delay said the point of discussion should focus on the fact that e the first two conditions of the approval are that the traffic diverter be approved by the Planning Commission and Council, and a year later another study would be done in the area. He wondered what more could be done. He felt Council had to determine whether or not there is sufficient evidence that this development will exceed the capacity of the road network. Many areas of the city have unresolved problems of increased traffic and hazardous conditions. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to deny the appeal, to approve the Hearings Official approval, and to adopt findings of fact. Motion carried with all Councilors voting aye, except Mr. Haws voting no. Mr. Obie reiterated he would like to know whether or not the residents in the neighborhood would rather have the option of eliminating through traffic. He suggested the issue of eliminating through traffic in the entire area being placed on a future agenda. Mayor Keller suggested Mr. Obie bring that request to a Wednesday meeting. C. Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval of Planning Director's Approval of Minor Partition Located East of Oakway Road on Sandy Drive (Atwood) (M 78-39) Mr. Saul said this minor partition had been submitted February 24, 1978, prior to Council's discussion and resultant moratorium on panhandle lots. At that time, Council had directed staff that those applications filed prior to the moratorium be considered under the e present standards. This application was reviewed and approved under those standards. It was appealed to the Planning Commission who reaffirmed the approval; subsequent appeal came to City Council. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Councilors. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. Robert A. Voas, 2216 Sandy Drive, spoke in favor of the appeal. He thanked Council for the moratorium on panhandle lots. He asked that Council postpone action on this application until after the review of panhandle lots had been completed. He noted the property had been owned since 1955, and this application was filed only this year. He felt asking for three and one-half months' delay would not be unrea- sonable. He noted a problem of enforcement of criteria that would be solved by the current review of panhandle lots, and wished for delay on this application until those new criteria were ready. " 6/26/78--11 if'S -~-- -- -