07/02/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- -- . . realignment. Negotiations are continuing with property owners concerning trees on the north side to determine location of sidewalk installation. Mr. Allen added that three . trees on the south side would be saved because of the proposed realignment to the north. Councilman Bradley wondered if it would be appropriate for the attorney representing one of the affected property owners to respond with regard to the proposed new alignment. Assistant Manager said it was his understanding the attorney had been aware the five- foot right-of-way was in public ownership and had discussed that fact with the property owners. Whether its actual use was discussed he didn't know, but the property owner did know it was there and would be used. Councilman Haws commented that there would be only one lane access to the gas pumps, the two existing lanes could not be used. To which Mr. Allen responded that parking on the sidewalk would in no way be authorized. Councilwoman Shirey asked what would be entailed in "staff working with the property owners. " Assistant Manager answered that alternatives were not as demanding with the right-of-way 20 feet away from homes on the south under the proposed shift to the north. However, he had some concern about precedent if on another arterial project there should be 50 property owners with situations similar to the two houses under discussion. Since there were only two in this case, if the Council wished, something might be worked out with regard to minimizing the impact of the road. He suggested some time limit be set - a year or six months - within which public involvement must be resolved. Councilman Williams thought that there should be opportunity for public input in view of the new change in alignment. I-A-2 Mr. Williams moved second by Mr. Hamel to reopen public hearing not to e exceed 15 minutes. Motion carried unanimously. Public hearing was reopened. Douglas Melevin, 1355 Oak Street, attorney representing property owners on the south side of the street, said he had not had the opportunity to speak to his clients since this most recent change in the alignment and suggested they give their own individual views. He pointed out that properties on the south would still be losing much more land than if the road was built on a straight line. He gained confirmation from Mr. Allen that the new alignment would take only four feet more from those properties than it would have had the road been constructed on a straight line. He suggested that one year be given in which to work out landscaping problems in minimizing impact of the road if the suggestion ~as followed to work with the property owners in that regard. This, he said, would give time for proper planning and construction in view of the completion of the improvement just prior to the winter months. Howard Warner, 1510 Olive Street, representing the Barger Drive Market, wanted assurance that there would be "speedy assistant" from the city with regard to approval of plans for construction of a new market. He also questioned the legality of the five-foot right-of-way, saying he had checked ownership back to 1951 and had found that previous owners had not signed anything with regard to the five feet. Mr. Warner also thought there should be more effort to give public notice of meetings on these types of im- provements. Irving Linquist, 3890 Barger Drive, said he owned property on the other side of Belt Line to the east. He said he knew nothing of the project and wondered if plans were ,_ available to see whether his property was affected. John Munn, 5100 Barger Drive, wondered if the July 1 deadline for negotiations would be changed. He also asked who did the negotiating and where one could get an estimate of the estimate of the assessment for the project. 7/2/75 - 3 ~foS