Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCORRESPONDENCE Brett McCully - Re: Electric guy conflict Page 1] From: Brett McCully To: Tony Michalsky Date: 4/25/03 7:45AM Subject: Re: Electric guy conflict thanks! »> Tony Michalsky 04/24/03 08:32PM »> our pole »> Brett McCully 04/24/03 03:29PM »> Ok, I must be low on coffee Is the one farthest from the pole ours or cox? »> Tony Michalsky 04/24/03 03:15PM »> the one farthest away from the pole »> Brett McCully 04/24/03 02:04PM »> Tony, One more question for you, which guy is ours and which is Cox's? »> Tony Michalsky 04/24/03 10:57AM »> There are two guy wires on the pole. One is ours and the other is Cox Communications. We can change ours to an overhead guy wire to a pole about 100 ft east and install a new anchor at that pole. This would cost about $250 to the person requesting the removal. They would need to contact Cox to get them to relocate theirs. If they want this done just have them contact me or Ronnie. »> Brett McCully 04/22/03 08:24AM »> Good Morning, I have a property owner who wants to squeeze a new driveway near an existing pole, but a guy wire is in the way. The drive would open onto the south side of Lincoln almost opposite of the detention basin behind best buy. I have attached some picss if it helps. He wants a drive between the existing pole and the flagged property corner. When I looked at the site, I saw the wire was slack, not just loose. I also saw that the overheads went 4 directions, so I could not figure why the guy would have to stay. There is also an anchor in the ground right next to the guy that does not have anything hooked to it. So here's the deal, can you have somebody go look and see if the guy(s) are needed, or if we can clear them out of the way on the east side of the pole. Many thanks! c/ 27 3 Ma_ t 1 L e D y ✓L (= L C z- 1 Brett McCully - Re: Lincoln - Walton- Foster Alley _ Page 1 From: Mark Smith To: Brett McCully Date: 3/31/03 10:44AM Subject: Re: Lincoln - Walton- Foster Alley It is the City's responsibility to maintain the public facilities that are in the ROW. In this case there is no alley facility to maintain. We have gone into unimproved alley areas in the past to clean out trash and objectionable vegetation at the request of an adjacent property owner. That is only done with the consent of all of the adjacent property owners and only to address a public health or safety issue. My position on Mr. Holleman's request changed when I learned more about the specifics of the situation. To start with, I thought we were looking at a different lot. When our drainage foreman went to the site in preparation to begin the work, he found that there were some significant obstacles. Also, he determined that we would not be working only behind Mr. Holleman's property. The obstacles include fences, hedges that serve as privacy screens and at least two large oak trees. The requested work does not comply with our standard procedures and as a result I decided that we would not carry out the work requested. As to the question of what a private individual may do in a public ROW: Chapter 3 of the City Code spells out the process for the construction of private facilities in public right of ways (the PIP process). As far as landscaping and maintenance of these areas, Chapter 7 says that adjacent property owners must mow the ROW up to the edge of the pavement. Where there is no pavement, I suppose that there is no maintenance requirement. If you drive around town, you will find a variety of things going on in the unimproved alleys in residential areas. I see gardens, clothes lines, kennels, cases where the area is totally ignored and cases where the resident has claimed their adjacent alley as part of their own back yard. I can't think of a case where someone laid claim to or used the alley behind someone else's property. While we do not grant permission for private use of unimproved alleys outside the PIP process, we do not force removal unless the private use comes into conflict with the operation and /or maintenance of a public facility. The City Codes do not provide a specific process for making alley improvements in existing unimproved alley righs of way. Without a specific alley policy, I would look to the policy for repaving residential streets. The City Code describes a petittion process for that situation and I think that a similar policy would apply to alleyways. Mark Smith Director of Public Works 979 - 764 -3690 »> Brett McCully 03/31/03 07:38AM »> Mark, As long as I get a written clarification from you on why it's not our (the City's) responsibility to clear that alley, were fine. It will help if you can address what rights Mr. Holleman has with regards to the same issues. I'll need it for the PRC variance packet to save you an after hours appearance. Thanks Brett »> Mark Smith 03/28/03 08:21 AM »> The clearing tuns out to not be as simple & uncontroversial as it was originally characterized. I will try to get by to discuss it with you later today. Mark Smith Brett McCully - Re: Lincoln - Walton- Foster Alley Page 2 Director of Public Works 979 - 764 -3690 »> Brett McCully 03/27/03 04:47PM »> Mark, I understand from talking with Marshall this morning that you have changed your position and decided not to have this alley cleared. I need to be able to convey to Mr. Holleman why your original decision was reversed, and what his options are with regards to the alley right of way behind his house. Because I expect that he will appeal my denial of his application for a driveway direct to Lincoln, we will need this explanation for PRC as well. In order to avoid this confusing delay while responding to future questions like this, I would appreciate it if you would provide us your policy for ROW maintenance and use. Thanks Brett CC: Glenn Brown; Kelly Templin; Marshall Wallace; Paul Urso; Tom Brymer Brett McCully - Alley Access Page 1 From: Brett McCully To: Paul Urso Date: 9/27/02 12:30PM Subject: Alley Access Paul, I've got a situation I need your clarification with, and maybe your help on. I have a submittal for a second driveway onto Lincoln from 303 Walton. I have denied the request because he has a 12' alley ROW at the rear to be used for access. However the ROW is obstructed towards foster with some shrubs and an appx. 10 inch oak and towards Lincoln with a large Verizon structure. There is a sewer line running the length of this alley that is scheduled to be removed and replaced in the same location as part of the last eastgate utility rehab projects. First off, what is our normal policy on maintaining accessability in these rear access ROWs? Second, given the fact that this alley will be cleared in the next year or two by the utility project, would your guys be willing and able to clear enough of the alley now to get access to this guy's lot from foster (avoiding the verizon issue)? I would like to respond back to the applicant before I leave town on wedesday, so I would appreciate a response back before then. Thanks! CC: Bob Mosley; John Logan; Spencer Thompson � W & 741 1 1/ /14 b � .r - _ rite ley 7 for + 9 ?l „v? T/41'