08/02/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Assistant Manager circulated the petition and a map showing the e area in question. He noted for Council the street improvement petition had come as a request from the Laurel Hill Valley neighborhood asso- ciation's concerns regarding use of Augusta and Riverview streets. Improvement of Laurel Hill Drive would relieve that traffic situation. The improvement petition signatures would reach approximately 50 percent consent without Mr. Potterfls signature. In response to a question from Mr. Haws, Assistant Manager said the Council could initiate such a petition without any signatures, but it had not done so in its normal process. However, if there were mitigating circumstances for improvement of the street, Council could initiate such a petition. He noted the traffic increase as a result of the proposed development could be cited as s~ch a circumstance. Mrs. Smith left the meeting. In response to a question from Mr. Delay, Mr. Allen said the sewers to serve the subdivision are in order, and the only way they could be designed would be to the west. The Council IS initiating process by passing the resolution at this time would result in answers to questions that cannot be answered today. He noted perhaps the street may be only 24 to 28 feet wide in order to save some of the trees in the area. Questions about the width of the street, saving the trees, use of the street as an interim facility during building of the subdivision, and the sewer design, would be answered by the initiating of this process today. He noted there would be a public hearing after e the design problems have been worked out, at the time of recommendation for awarding the contract. He also noted the percentage of signatures on a petition is not the problem, as Council could decide whether or not it needs the improvement with or without property owners' signatures. Assistant Manager added that the staff would do the complete design work so the property owners could see how the improvement would actually affect them, and staff could also determine whether or not there would be a right-of-way problem after the process had been initiated. Property owners could express their concerns at the City Council hearing before the contracts were awarded. This would also allow more information regarding the certainty of costs involved. Mr. Obie felt uncomfortable with moving ahead and requested the reso- lution be held over. His concerns regarded the increase of traffic by this development, although he saw the need for arterial movement, but he questioned how it would be most appropriately accomplished. He wondered if it might be possible that the developer who would be creating the traffic problem might be the person to pay for the street improvements. Mr. Haws reminded Council it was simply initiating the process at this time, so answers to the questions that had been raised could be avail- able. He noted if there were going to be a subdivision, it would necessitate a street improvement. Mr. Obie again expressed concern - of the financial cost to the City doing the engineering and development of the street design. Assistant Manager reminded Council this was a 8/2/78--Y 5~8