Laserfiche WebLink
a h_ ' <br /> 152 April 15,1987 <br /> Mr. Ilea <br /> not tleel swtaed the City's 118911199 t21m11 It 179982:22 <br /> ht15 t 9 ed <br /> attention. <br /> Ed Hensen, Attorney for Gary Anderson, stated to 1985 a letter was <br /> sent to Mr. a rltnd's counsel stating that M[. Anderson,would <br /> cooperate in asting these Conditions by dedicating he right of <br /> wayto the Cityity long as it did not cast him anything, did not <br /> ad,ersely affect his parking or damage his landscaping. <br /> Councilmen Stephenson asked about.the comment regarding the City's <br /> ownership of some cf the property in question. <br /> Landles stated that the City owned 3 td a feet of the paxoperty <br /> in question end the requitement eP improvements <br /> the dev consistent <br /> ke the <br /> offsite > well a the o site ments.ementa axe co istent w1tM1 <br /> condition'.�impesed on o[heetlevelopmenta. <br /> Councilman Overstreet stated there seem to be same Conflict e <br /> thetraffic cunt o Third Avenue. The figures from the Planning <br /> Department state'traffic counts show that 500 vehicles per week day <br /> on Third Avenue, the proposal would result in an additional 300 to f. <br /> 600 per day". These figures a significantly more than 200 Mr. f� <br /> Bastian previously stated. <br /> . Landles sated that the figures that are <br /> used in the Planning <br /> Department's report are a direct quote from the Traffic Engineer's <br /> memo during the subdivision review. <br /> Mr.Bastian stated he seemed to recall that there were two different <br /> .k traffic reports which conflicted in the traffic count. <br /> Noved by C uncllmen Stephenson,seconded.by Councilman Nive.to close <br /> tM1e Dubltc oheexing. <br /> President Gipson asked if anyone else wished to speak and no one <br /> replied. <br /> Roll was Called with all councilmen voting yes except Councilman <br /> Pope who was excused. <br /> II Motion carried. <br /> .1 <br /> �.. APPEAL <br /> Moved by Councilman Niue, seconded by bn Councilman Langus to deny the <br /> appeal opeal by the Planningd Department recommend that the Planning <br /> Department deny the urland subdivision request based On public jF#v <br /> safety issues. <br /> Councilman Niva stated that If Council takes this action it will Vic; <br /> alleviate the Segel questions of the appropriateness of the Planning <br /> Department as an aggrieved party and the requirement of off site <br /> improvements These legal questions have clouded the basic concern <br /> of the safety issues which are paramount in the approval of this <br /> subdivision. <br />