09/17/1980 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The remaining four were planning issues having to do with the develop- ment. Regarding item number 1, the City follows one of two State- authorized procedures. The second issue was whether the property e owner was abutting the street vacation. If they are abutting, the owners must consent to the vacation. Under a council-initiated vacation the owners' consent is not required. To determine what . is abutting is a difficult question. City practice has been to not treat properties situated in the manner of the letter as abutting. Legal authority supports that practice but it is not particularly strong. This definition of abutting is a long-standing, consistent practice. The third issue is whether these people should have been given personal notice of the Planning Commission meeting. The answer is two-fold. Planning Commission meetings were held with certain procedures of notice. Under those procedures these individuals were not entitled to personal notice. The Planning Commission's role in street vacation decisions is not a required role. It is a City practice that they do review them. With respect to legal requirements for notice, under the statutes, publication in a newspaper and posting is all that is required and those requirements have been met. Mr. Haws felt the question for the council was solely one of a street vacation, not what the land will be used for. Mr. Long said it is within the discretion of the City Council whether to vacate a street. He suggested that the council should consider the street vacation on its merits. Public hearing was opened. e Speaking in favor of the street vacation: Oscar Krumdieck, owner of parcels 6600, 6500, and 6400, said they are proposing a project that would be of benefit to the community. The street is not being used. It would make sense to tie the proper- ties together. The plans for the housing development have preliminary approval from State Housing Division. Congressman Weaver sent a letter of support to HUD. Mr. Krumdieck hoped to have funding by next year. He asked for council support for the street vacation. Speaking against the street vacation: Judith Tegger, 90 East 29th Place (Tax Lot 6300), explained that when she ought the property two years ago it was zoned R-2 with an empty lot next to it. There was a rezoning of the properties south of 29th two years ago. At that time it was indicated in the Comprehensive Plan that R-1 zone was appropriate. She requested that she be notified at the time of site review on the vacant area. During the following year she checked twice with the Planning Department to make sure that nothing had gone through. On Labor Day she noticed the e 9/17/80--6