08/13/1980 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Public hearing was opened. Speaking in favor: -- Lloyd Lindley, 3520 Bardell Avenue, stated that when the property was being developed, access was to be maintained to a proposed park. When the plan was approved, one lot was purchased and 30 feet were retained with the balance deeded to adjacent properties east and west. The requested vacation of the pedestrian way is not intended to eliminate access but exchange this access with an area owned by Northwest Pipeline. Northwest Pipeline has indicated they will allow the public to use a 30-foot strip of land which they own for access. He distrib- uted photos. The current location, due to a large tree in the path, is difficult for canoeists to bring their canoes down. Northwest Pipeline will maintain the right-of-way. If the access is retained at its current location, there is the problem of encroachment of private property and poor parking. There is currently a problem with maintaining this strip of land. The owners would like to improve their property and if they put up a fence, it would cause a IS-foot strip to be ma i nt a i n ed . Northwest Pipeline has approved the use of their property for a clear right-of-way and to provide better access for canoeists. There being'no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Henry asked if this information was presented to the Planning staff. Mr. Jacobson responded that Mr. Lindley was not at the Planning Commission meeting and they had received no written testimony. This is new information. Ms. Smith asked why the Planning Commission - - ---e -- denied the request. Ms. Lannom_ stated that because there was no additional information given, this seemed no different from the previous 1976 request. Mr. Lieuallen noted that since the Planning Commission did not have this information, he would be uncomfortable acting on it today but would like more staff research to see if this other access could be used. Ms. Miller asked if Northwest Pipeline has granted an easement to the City. Mr. Jacobson stated that there is not one as far as he knows and added that maintainenance of this area is still a problem. Mr. Obie stated that the Planning Commission did not have the informa- tion which the council has. If the council denied this request, he wondered when the applicant could make his case before the Planning Commission. Mr. Henry suggested sending_ this back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration rather than taking any action at this time. Mr. Obie stated that it either should be sent back or denied. Mr. Delay said that since this is new information, no action should be taken but it should be referred back to the Planning Commission. Ms. Schue noted agreement. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to refer this item back to the Planning Commission and to take no action on it today. e 8/13/80--6