Laserfiche WebLink
2. (Corresponds to your current recommendation #1.) Regardless of <br />whether abandonment or closing is determined to be an acceptable avenue, <br />we are in agreement that your current #1 is appropriate. The Historial <br />Society suggests that your recommendations in #1 be expanded to include <br />all legal arrangements, including easements, realignment, etc., be <br />reviewed by the County attorney's office, which we believe is the intent <br />of your recommendation #1- <br />3. (Corresponds to your current recommendation #2.) The Historial <br />Society agrees with your recommendation #2. If the realignment is <br />it is imperative that the developer dedicate the right of way <br />the development entrance to ensure Jungle <br />adopted; <br />for Jungle Trail through <br />Trail's continuity. In other words, the entrance to the development <br />cannot take legal priority for right of way over the Trail. <br />ority <br />Additionally, for the inra the entrances roadnmustsstoriyieldlintegrity, <br />right oft <br />ay to <br />development traffic g <br />the traffic on Jungle Trail. <br />4. (Corresponds to your current recommendation #3.) Your current #3 <br />is acceptable to the Historial Society. <br />5. (Corresponds with your current recommendation #4 and relates in <br />part to your paragraph #1 in your June 12, 1989, letter.) The <br />Historial Society is in agreement with that recommendation. <br />6. (Corresponds to your current recommendation #5 and paragraph #3 <br />of your June 12, 1989, letter.) As we have discussed, let us <br />an be made safe and accessible to <br />recognize that any realignment c <br />vehicular traffic including machinery and trucks servicing the groves <br />to the north of the proposed development. of critical importance, <br />however, is the developer's stated intent of offering ny as theaccnod uid pro <br />quo for realignment <br />cannote be at the expenenicallse of the enhanced <br />quality. <br />for traffic <br />7. (Corresponds with your current recommendation #6.) The <br />Historical Society agrees that a 5 foot wide limited access easement <br />is.a good idea. However, as stated above in #3 above, the 5 foot wide <br />limited access easement must run the entire length of the Trail and <br />not except the entrance road. <br />8. (Corresponds with your current recommendation #7.) As we have <br />discussed, the entire route of the portion of Jungle Trail that will <br />be closed must remain marked and accessible to the public. As we have <br />previously pointed out, visual access is unacceptable because there is <br />no way that you realigned portion. can adequately and completelyvisually access the <br />Trail from the Any historical information and <br />alignment markers must be done in a professional manner. The <br />Historical Society recommends that the County retain the services of a <br />professional consultant, at the expense of the developer, to <br />accomplish the objectives outlined in your recommendation V. <br />9. (Corresponds with your current recommendation #8.) The Historical <br />Society agrees in principle with the recommendations outlined in As your <br />paragraph #8. However, there remains certain traffic concerns. <br />you <br />know, the developer is touting the elimination of two 90 degree turns. <br />Please direct your attention to the northern most turn where the <br />realignment meets torsi than Trail. <br />the two 90s point, <br />it turns that thears tthe turn <br />developer <br />proposed there is . <br />seeks to eliminate. <br />What follows are the Historical Society's additional concerns and they <br />will be numbered consecutively for ease of reference. <br />7377 F, 911 <br />� UI N i `�sbzy �na� <br />