Laserfiche WebLink
223 <br /> Minor Modification to Case PUD-85-8-1D, AT&T Multi-Buildin9 Complex Site 59 <br /> (PUD-85-8-1D-1M/ <br /> Mr. Swift presented his report (IR 86:85) dated October 28, 1986, regard- <br /> ing this matter. No action was required or taken by Council on the item. <br /> <br /> Policy Regutatin9 Smoking in City Buildings <br /> Mr. Walker presented the report of the Assistant to the City Manager (IR <br /> 86:88) dated October 28, 1986, regarding this matter. No action was required <br /> or taken by Council on the item. <br /> <br />Hyde Park Development <br /> Mr. MacDonald presented a letter from Robert R. Presky dated October 22, <br />1986, stating that the fence, tree and drainage problem in the Hyde Park <br />Development Tract 2964 has not yet been settled. Mr. MacDonald also presented <br />his letter to America Savings dated February 20, 1986, requesting that these <br />problems be resolved by them. <br /> <br /> Mr. Robert Persky, 4276 Churchill Drive, stated the issue of the drainage <br />needs to be resolved before the rainy season starts. He also stated the fence <br />and eucaluptus trees needs to be settled. He appealed to the City Council to <br />take action to get thiese problems solved in a reasonable amount of time. <br /> <br /> Mr. MacDonald presented a map showing the sidewalk to be in the wrong <br />location; he stated the City can legally enforce that action be taken to cor- <br />rect this matter. He advised that the former developer may have verbally <br />agreed to build an eight foot fence; which will not be as easy to enforce <br />since it is not a written condition of approval. He su9gested Council in- <br />struct him to write a letter to American Savings, the present developer, to <br />demand they relocate the sidewalk where it should have been located in the <br />first place. <br /> <br /> Mr. Persky stated that one resident, Mr. Dillon, suffered damage to his <br />fence; he felt restitution was the responsibility of the developer. <br /> <br /> Mr. Jim Dillon, 4288 Churchill Drive, stated that during the construction <br />period a section of his fence was broken down by the developer, and the cost <br />of repairs to the fence was $584.00. <br /> <br /> Mr. MacDonald stated that unfortunately the fence damage is not bonded and <br />the City cannot enforce action relative to the matter. <br /> <br /> Mr. Persky stated there is still the problem of the eucalyptus trees that <br />were supposed to be removed in the original plan and replaced with appropriate <br />trees. Mr. MacDonald read a portion of the transcript that quoted the <br />developer as stating the neighbors could taken down the trees; this matter was <br />not a condition of approval. <br /> <br /> After discussion, it was moved by Councilmember Mercer, and seconded by <br />Councilmember Wood, instructing the City Attorney to write a letter to Ameri- <br />can Savings to require them to relocate the sidewalk, and raise the City con- <br />cerns regarding the promised eight foot fence, removal of the eucalyptus trees <br />and their replacement with appropriate trees, and reimburse Mr. Dillon for the <br />damage to his fence within thirty days. <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers Mercer, Mohr, Wood, and Mayor Brandes <br /> <br /> 4 - 10-28-86 <br /> <br /> <br />