My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1976 06 17
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1976 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1976 06 17
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:10 PM
Creation date
8/26/2009 11:52:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
6/17/1976
Original Hardcopy Storage
7C3
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1976 06 17
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />PARKWOOD FILING #2 <br />CONTID <br /> <br />whatever is agreed to in the P.U.D., <br />should it be single family dwellings or <br />otherwise, that is what will be guilt; in <br />addition to that Wood Bros. would not <br />only have that as part of the P.U.D., but <br />that there restrictive covenents would <br />say the same thing. <br /> <br />Mr. Heiter stated that they had_ a suggestion <br />for a solution to the double frontage <br />lot. <br />He stated that Wood Bros. would dedicate <br />to the City a one foot strip to prevent <br />access to the property from Lincoln St. <br />This would not be for road purposes. <br />Secondly, Wood Bros. would grade the lots <br />in such a way that the embankment becomes <br />a berm, somewhat higher and longer than <br />it is now. It would have the effect not <br />only of shielding that lot, but also help <br />prevent some of the street noise. <br />He stated that fences would work as well <br />but would be more to maintain and cost more. <br />Mr. Drumm asked how the berm would be <br />treated. <br />Mr. Heiter stated that the berm details <br />would have to be worked out; part of it <br />would have to be on City right-of-way and <br />part on the lot. <br />Mr. George Holley stated that the easement <br />should be put in the plat itself for the <br />purpose of maintaining the berm; this would <br />inform the purchaser and give the City <br />right to enforce it. <br />Councilman DiCarlo stated that he did not <br />want any land dedicated to the City. <br />Mr. Holley stated that it would not be a <br />dedication, but an easement for subjacent <br />lateral support, which means that the <br />owner of the property could not go in and <br />cut it out without being liable to the City. <br />Engineer White stated that he did not think <br />the City would want to be liable for any <br />maintenance of that. <br />Mr. Heiter stated that the wor "maintenance" <br />was used in the context that Wood Bros. <br />could guarantee that it would exist. The <br />portions that would have grass growing on <br />it would be maintained in probably the <br />exact way the City maintains their other <br />right-of-ways. He stated that it would be <br />his vision that the berm would occur in- <br />side private property. <br /> <br />DOUBLE FRONTAGE LOTS <br /> <br />3. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.