CCMIN091575 - Laserfiche WebLink

Councilmember Herlihy asked about the right-of-way easement that was to be dedicated for Recreational purposes. There was some question as to the location of this easement and if it had, in fact, been dedicated to the City. It was established that the easement did, in fact, exist on the property and that con- trary to the contentions for a private street - the public has a right to travel across the subdivision. Mr. Scheidig explained the Hillside Ordinance, and stated he felt there had been no good justification as to why this street should be made a private street. He recommended that Council indicate to developer that his request be denied and to prepare and submit another map. In final a~gument, Mr. Maines stated he had followed every direction in re- gard to filing maps and would not waive any right for his client. He reiterated the reasons he felt a private road would be in the best interest for this develop- ment and stated his client was willing to comply with conditions set forth by the Planning Commission. Mayor Kinney recessed the meeting at 2:00 A.M. Mayor Kinney reconvened the meeting at 2:05 A.M. Discussion of the project by Council ensued. Councilmember LeClaire stated that the days when informal arrangements were made with the City are now over and that she supports action by the City staff and Council requiring formalized arrangements with applicants. She did not feel that the Council is bound by previous City Council actions with respect to Ten- tative Tract Map 2892, especially since that Map had expired and six years have elapsed since its initial approval. She favored denial because the street width is inadequate and unacceptable, there are no vehicular turnouts, the proposed private street does not compare with other developments in the City having pri- vate streets, she believed there would be maintenance problems, and that no justification for a private road had been presented. Councilmember Herlihy stated that the City's rules and regulations are not unfamiliar to the developer and his representatives, and that the request for a private road should mot be granted because it is too narrow, he is concerned about maintenance and repairs on the road, and he believes there will be safety problems related to such a narrow road. He did not believe that Castlewood was a fair comparison and stated that the width of the road should be at City stan- dards and should be designed for maximum safety. Mayor Kinney agreed with the comments of Councilmember LeClaire regarding informal procedures which may have occurred in the past which are no longer applicable to problems facing the City in 1975. Mayor Kinney expressed con- cern about events that will transpire years from now especially with respect to liability by the City for the design of the proposed road. It was his belief that the decision that Council must make must be for the good of the City in the long run and not for the short term benefits of one individual. He agreed that the grade of the road at 20% will create problems unless efforts are made to insure that the road is designed as safely as possible. He did not believe it was in the best interest of the City to allow a private street in this development. Councilmember Philcox was also concerned about the safety of the road and the safety of individuals using same. He stated it is the health and safety of the people that is important and that it is imperative that the road be properly designed to insure that it is safe. He did not feel that Justifica- tion for a private road had been presented and urged a redesign of the road from a safety standpoint. 4. 9/15/75