04-11-94 Public Works & Property Vacation

Home Browse Search

. r Public Works and Property Vacation Committee April 11, 1994 Page 2 Mr. Stan Blenke, executive Vice-President of Schafer Gear stated that trucks currently have to turn off of Main onto Tutt, and it is very dangerous. He also noted that there is a considerable amount of pedestrian traffic from the parking lot to the plant. Mr. Phil Panzica, the architect for the proposed building, stated that it would enroach to the right-of-way, and that the project could not go forward if Tutt were to remain as an active right-of-way. Councilmember Slavinskas questioned ingress and egress, and the proposed widening concept as a way of possibly balancing the concerns of the developer versus the concerns of traffic safety. Mr. Leszczynski stated that the Board of Public Works sent a favorable recommendation on the substitute Bill and noted that there are probably 10 to 20 trucks in the area per day. Councilmember Washington questioned the one-way postings and signalization of Tutt. Councilmember Zakrzewski also voiced concern with regard to the proposed vacation. Councilmember Luecke stated that he would support the vacation, however, is concerned about safety concerns being raised to the other business. Councilmember Luecke also noted that he believes further study of Sample/Fellows area should be made and the possibility of using '1114" dollars for upgrading the turning radius. Plus Councilmember Slavinskas also suggested perhaps acquiring property by the Church would also be necessary. Councilmember Duda suggested that a compromise should be pursued. Councilmember Zakrzewski stated that he believes to go forward today on the proposed vacation would put the seven (7) negatively affected businesses in a "hostage situation". Councilmember Duda made a motion to continue for two (2) weeks substitute Bill No. 23-94. The motion failed for the lack of the second. Council President Puzzello questioned when engineering would address the traffic concerns and was advised by Mr. Leszczynski that they would begin on the project tomorrow. Councilmember Coleman stated that the Committee should be aware of the time frames involved and that if condemnation was necessary a minimum of 6 to 8 weeks would be involved. Councilmember Washington stated that a reasonable compromise would be necessary. He made a motion to continue the Bill to perhaps a special meeting to be held prior to the May 9th meeting. The Council Attorney noted that a request for continuance should come from the petitioner in light of state law requiring Council action within the 30 day period. Ann Kolata,on behalf of the petitioner,requested a continuance to the last week of April if at all possible. No action by the Committee was necessary in light of Ann Kolata's request.