By Myrna Trauntvein
Times-News Correspondent
Twenty-eight people attended council meeting to hear a
presentation by Sonne and Jim Greenhalgh as they spoke to
the council about concerns they had for the safety of their
children.
The two presenters wanted the council to know what their
real concerns were in relation to the location of their
homes, a proposed 55-foot roadway and Walnut Grove
Subdivision.
"Safety has not been addressed at anytime and should be a
priority," said Sonne Greenhalgh.
"Despite what the city council stated at their meeting
two weeks ago, we are not opposed to the Walnut Grove
Subdivision, we are concerned with the issue of safety for
our families and for the families of the proposed
subdivision."
With a subdivision of small lots, she said, there would
be even more traffic and more children. These are concerns
which should call for a 60-foot roadway along 300 East.
The private lane does not match up with the existing road
going west.
The road narrows down from 90-feet on the west to a
privately-owned 33-foot lane.
The city has been in negotiations, for six months, with
Steve Ludlow and Vard White, property owners, to build a
subdivision between 400 East and 600 East and between 300
South and 400 South.
"I have talked to three of the planning and zoning
commissioners, and according to one of them, this is the
poorest planned subdivision he has ever seen," said S.
Greenhalgh.
Instead of building so many small homes, it would have
been better to have deeper lots which would allow a higher
cost for the lot and a more expensive home.
"Not one person that we talked to, including a member of
the city council and two of the planning and zoning
commissioners would like living across the street from this
subdivision," she said.
Another issue, being totally disregarded, is the issue of
safety of those who live in the area now and those who will
live there in the future.
"In section 13-602, it states that, and again I am
quoting, 'Local streets shall have a minimum right-of-way
width of sixty feet with sixty-six feet right-of-way width
required for streets that will have greater use as
determined by the planning commission,'" said S.
Greenhalgh.
On the subdivision map given her by Ludlow Engineering,
it shows two 55 foot right-of-ways and maybe a third on 400
South.
She said that the ordinance also states that all proposed
streets should conform to the city standards.
"Ludlow Engineering is also putting in a cul-de-sac that
is longer than the ordinance allows for," she said.
She said the city ordinance said a cul-de-sac should not
be longer than 600 feet but the one being proposed is over
800 feet.
It was considered to be a temporary cul-de-sac but, both
the city and the engineering firm, it would most likely be a
permanent turn on a dead-end street.
On July 30, 2004, she said they went to the city
recorder's office and filled out a records request form to
find a city ordinance that would show the current
tight-or-way of 60 feet being changed to 55-feet. Such a
change could not be found.
An ordinance was adopted for a 55-foot right-of-way in
January 1997. But on April 4, 200, Mayor Chad Brough signed
a new subdivision ordinance that adopted the minimum 60-foot
requirement.
"I was Incorrect," said Greg Rowley. "My copy of the
subdivision ordinance did say 55-feet (for roadways) but I
was wrong."
A subdivision plat must be complied with and approved
before it is recorded and lots are sold, she said. In
addition, all lots, plots and tracts within a subdivision
will be subject to the ordinance and before any paperwork or
documents can be signed, these laws and ordinance need to be
complied with.
Full compliance is required, she said, and any license or
permit issued in conflict with the provisions of the
ordinance will be null and void.
If there are laws, everyone should have to abide by them
and those laws should not be broken to suit certain citizens
or groups.
One thing Rowley said that everyone needed to think about
was that ordinances were written to control new
construction. The challenge then came to match up areas
where there was building around the subdivision.
Ludlow Engineering is not the bad guy in the story, said
Mike Jones, mayor pro tem acting for Mayor Chad Brough who
was not present.
"Steve Ludlow did not even want that street there," said
Jones.
Jim Greenhalgh, however, said he did not see that owners
of the property where the proposed subdivision is to be
built, were sacrificing anything for the roadway.
"The first proposal was for a subdivision of 23 lots and
now there are 25 lots," he said.
Rowley said no one on the council had thought they needed
to go out and contact the property owners of the area
bordering the subdivision. Concerns had surfaced as the plan
was being solidified.
"What would you like to see happen?" asked Jones.
The Greenhalghs said they would like to have the 60-foot
roadway that city ordinance prescribes.
"We need a 60-foot right-of-way," said S. Greenhalgh.
Jim Wilkey, council member, said, "We thought we were
helping out."
Wilkey said the homes on the north side of the roadway
would get curb and gutter when the gutters and curbs were
put in for the subdivision.
"Only if we pay for them," said J. Greenhalgh.
All that will happen is that the Ludlow firm will survey
the curb and gutter. No one but the homeowner will pay for
the improvements.
Even though no solid promises were made, said S.
Greenhalgh, she thought she and Jim Greenhalgh, her husband,
were treated better at the council meeting than they had
been treated at the meeting two weeks before.
"We were listened to more this time," she said.
Nevertheless, Greenhalghs do want a 60-foot roadway and
they want subdivision developers to use a fair amount of the
subdivision property for the development of the road.
"We should not lose our front yards," said J.
Greenhalgh.
|
