10/23/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to segregate discussion of the bridge relative to Amazon Slough e at Acorn Park. Motion carried with all Councilors present voting aye, except Mr. Bradley voting no and Mr. Lieuallen abstaining. In response to Mr. Lieuallen, Mr. Obie said he wanted Council to discuss the possibility of moving the bridge to Buck Street and what action is necessary to do that. Staff responded that one of the problems that would face the City in the future is maintenance of the bridge now in existence. Council would have to close that bridge and reconstruct it. At that time, it would be legitimate to decide whether or not to move the bridge to Buck Street. Staff could assess the situation and have a series of public hearings in the neighborhood as to whether the bridge should be relocated. It was pointed out that Mr. Hanks indicated there was on application pending for Federal funding of that bridge. If the plans were changed, it would mean amending that process and reapplying for funds for the final site of the bridge. It was noted that a decision would not be made until staff reports back to Council after conducting research. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to amend the main motion on the floor that no decision be made on the Acorn/Buck Street bridge until after the report made by staff. Vote was taken on the motion which carried with all Councilors present voting aye, except Mr. Bradley voting no. Vote was taken on the main motion to adopt the resolution e which carried unanimously. It was noted that Mr. Obie voted for all of those items in the TIP in which he did not have a conflict of interest. B. Appeal of Condition Imposed on Horizon West First Addition Subdivision Located east side of Hawkins Lane, south of 25th Avenue (S 78-12) Denied by Planning Commission August 28, 1978, with a 5:1 vote. Jim Saul, Planner, said the total subdivision is approximately five acres and is known as the First Addition to Horizon Homes. The appeal is of a particular condition imposed by the Planning Department as one of the conditions of tentative approval. He noted there was some confu- sion as to the exact dimensions of the particular parcel. He felt the most accurate description of the parcel is, "A strip of land' 50 feet in width, measuring some 311 to 316 feet in length." It was a stri p of land created some years ago to provide access to the property from Hawkins Heights and up to approximately one year ago, was an integral part of the parcel of land. About one year ago, that piece of the property was severed by a bargain and sale deed and apparently sold. That severance of land did not undergo review, either through the minor partition or subdivision process, and hence was a violation e 10/23/78--4 "1(,