09/17/1980 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

does not feel that the site review process has started. During the site review process for the two lots on the south, surrounding property owners will be notified as one of the first steps in the site e review process. The hope is that the site review will alleviate the traffic concerns heard in the testimony. In response to Mr. Haws' question, Mr. Croteau said that the street is currently barricaded at the west end. Mr. Allen added that this was done much earlier in a similar manner as the diverter program now. He stated that staff would not want to reinitiate the opening of the street. Ms. Miller was assured by Mr. Croteau that the surrounding neighbor- hood would be notified of the site review. She asked why the council was considering the street vacation before the site review. Manager guessed .that the owner probably needed control of the site before applying to HUD. Ms. Schue pointed out that if access to the project were from Willam- ette many of the neighbors' concerns would be alleviated. Mr. Obie pointed out the benefits for authorizing the vacation. One was financial as the City has an asset that is not being used. Second, it will meet the council policy in terms of density goals, etc. It is a benefit for the larger community although not for the adjacent community. He suggested placing a reserve strip on the Oak side of the property that would ensure protection for the adjacent commun ity . e Mr. Haws suggested they vacate the street and consider the development in the future. Ms. Miller felt the matter should go back to the Planning Commission with instructions to consider the testimony presented this evening. She indicated it was difficult for her to vacate the street without knowing what is planned for the area. She interpreted the staff position to be that if the Planning Commission is not legally required to have a hearing they are not required to personally notify people. She said if the Planning Commission has a hearing it is in the City's and council's best interest to have as many people as possible testify at.that hearing so that problems can be resolved in that forum. She asked that the matter be sent back to the Planning Commission to consider not only the street vacation but site review and the timing of these matters. The HUD regulations need to be known, the amount of payment for the street needs to be determined, and pedestrian access needs to be determined. Mr. Lieuallen agreed that the matter should be reconsidered by the Planning Commission. e 9117/80--8