07-25-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting

Home Browse Search

acceptable. (In a phone conversation of July 22, 1988 the resident indicated it may now be acceptable.) 3. Road Alignment - While agreeing to a road alignment last ?all -the property owner now feels tr.., : was riot the alignment that was agreed to. Measurements from the center to two existing stakes however does indicated that the alignment is in line with last fall's. 4. Project Construction - The proL,.rty owner feels that the only reason for the project going ahead was because of the subdivisio-. That was correct. We indicated however, that the current road is falling apart and that wor. -)uld have to done in the next 5 to 10 years to upgi . :.t, even without the subdivision. They have now raised the issue that the subdivision shoull have accessed through the Country l+.rb and not through Woodh i 1 1 Avenue. This was not L issue raised by them or any of the abutting neighbors at the time according to the minutes. Whi' - an abutting nei,!;bor southeast of Lot 3 had granted an easement for one c: thf! lots through their Property to allow access out ont . Wo�dhill Road, (which is, u private road with a public acres.; back about 1,000 feet from the County Road 15,) it is unknown 'at they would have granted the private road right-of-way to all the prof;erties. This alternative wa ; of extensively explored at the time because -the pr. -✓ being subdivided had substantial right-of-way on hill Avenue and the fart that nobody had rai,-cd tip i issue of a l tc r nate access at the ;Ame. (It should be noted, the house at 1315 is approximately 20 feet from the right-of-way and the edge of the new traveled road surfice i.3 10-12 feet :aside the City's 60 foot. right-of-way.1 5. NotificaL,on c,: the ghbors - The pi., irty owners feel that they were nor-tified, particularly of the Tune 27th reconsideratiwi. an th .'t they did nor. have an opportunity to :ommef:,.. The City did not send out ~etice to t.,ose property owners of the reconsideration, however, t'Q public hearing and commen' , had been taken at two prior public hearings and the public comments section ".d been closed, !only -i.e of th,• hearings was required.'p It should be n-'�d that the contractor origin:^lly was supposed to stu, ,, the w_)rk on "londay, July A%h, however: he did not start that morning and when t__ star'.ed Tuesday iiiorning some individual(s) had removed man" the construction stakes anC, sowe •f- the c-entF:r marks were painted over on the rest in ce location . This action may cntai1 additional prof �t Costs.