Laserfiche WebLink
September IS, 1997 <br />Page 2 <br />the regeneration of natural vegetation might be the oest scrct»\ing <br />alternative available. <br />1 <br />y. <br />8. <br />11. <br />Agreed. <br />Agreed. <br />Agreed. <br />Again, 1 do not recall the precise requirement that tltc right-of-way be <br />rededicated "to meet City curv'c requirements". Instead, what I <br />remember is that the owner was to meet \Nith the City Staff and <br />Engineer to reconsider the expansion of the right-of-way dedication. I <br />do agree that the Planning Commission provided that, if the dedication <br />of the additional right-of-way encroached into the drainfieid area, the <br />drainfield area would be allowed to be maintained in its current <br />location. <br />I agree that this matter was leit open for consideration by the Council, <br />but wish to be on record that the Wlritcheads do not want to bear full <br />responsibility for jmpro\ing the road tor the other nine parcels whi<^ <br />abut the road, and wirich under normal circimrstances would share in <br />the cost of any road improvements, further, it is important to <br />remember that, at least as proposed by the Planning Commission, the <br />driveways serving the two new parcels will be located more than 240 <br />feet West of the cuive that everyone i.s so concerned about. <br />A’J'ain. mv’ recollection is that the Planning Commission did not dictate <br />that any sight improvements at the cuiA'e be paid for by the applicant, <br />but rather that the applicant w^orV "vvith the City to determine what <br />might be appropriate. As with pouu 9 above, any improvements m the <br />sight lines at tire curve will benefit all users of Lyman Avenue. Also, a.s <br />noted above in paragraph 9, the tw'o new' lots will secure their access <br />well to the West of the curve area. (I have trouble understanding how <br />one new' cuibcut (see condition No. 11) located so far to tl\e West o <br />the problem area should result in this Applicant having to pay tJ\e entire <br />cost of road or sight line upgrades. <br />I agree that this is what the Planning Commi.ssion recommended, but at <br />the same time w'ant to give the ovm.er and the owner's surv'eyor an <br />.6-8l-d3S <br />20 *d IS£98£8219 ’ON XVJ 30Idd0 I1V1 NOiSNIM 92:11 .OHi i.6-8l-d3S