08/02/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I . I I I IV. Improvement Petitions Assistant Manager said there was some testimony to be taken for Reso- - lution 2975 regarding paving on Laurel Hill Drive. J. W. McCracken, Jr., 975 Oak, attorney representing Harriet Lowe, opposed Council's passage of the resolution. He raised the question of whether or not the signature on the petition of James Potterf was valid. He said Mr. Potterf would testify he had not signed the petition. If that were true, Mr. McCracken felt there probably were insignificant I signatures for the petition to be valid. Second, he felt if the street were widened to 36 feet it would require approximately four feet of Mrs. Lowe's property which could only be obtained by the City through the use of eminent domain. For these two reasons, he asked that the resolution be discontinued until it can be determined whether or not the petition is adequate. James Potterf, 2420 Laurel Hill Drive, testified he did not sign the petition. He said he did not want the street improvement and suggested the development could have access to the east. He understood that the deeded right-of-way on the street is 28 feet. If the City were to improve it to 36 feet, it would require additional right-of-way from his property, and he said he would not allow that to happen. He noted also, as a result of widening the street, it would come right up to Mrs. Lowe's front porch. He also noted a loss of many trees along the right-of-way, saying he would lose approximately five large ones on his property. He did not believe there was a benefit for the property owners for street development. He suggested the developers use the e existing right-of-way and incur the costs for the development. Howard Speer, 835 East Park, was an attorney representing Idea Builders, the developers of the property and petitioners for street improvement. Regarding Mr. Potterf's signature on the petition, he presented to Council a copy of the petition in which it showed each name was printed with a space below it for a signature. He said with Council's inspec- tion of the petition, they would find the name had been printed but no signature had been obtained from Mr. Potterf. It was his under- standing it was not necessary for all property owners on a street to concur with an initiative petition, but rather that could be done by even just one property owner. With the use of a map, he showed the proposed development and the reason for requested street improvement. He said the Planning Department had approved the subdivision for Judkins Heights which would be a 27-acre parcel developed into 102 single-family lots. One condition of the approval for the subdi- vision was that a petition for street improvement of Laurel Hill Drive be submitted to the City. This was primarily at the concern of the Laurel Hill neighborhood association to keep traffic off of other streets in the area. He said the petition had 57.7 percent of the affected property owners who wished improvement. He felt the reason for objection to the petition was because of the cost. He felt there was public need for the improvement and a need for single- family dwelling lots within the City. The plan was in conformance with the 1990 Plan and had been approved by the Planning Department. e He and Mr. Dean Greenwood were available to answer questions. 8/2/78--8 5~1 I