07-25-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting

Home Browse Search

The plans and specific-' ins were presented to the Council at their April 11, 1988 me—. 3 and because of a 2-2 vote to approve it was tabled on 4-0 'j�n to April 25th (it should be noted that there is not a ec itement that the Council approve the plans and specifications of the project.) At the April 25, 1988 meeting the plans and specifications weie approved on 3-2 vote with a second public hearing set for June 13, 1988. (In attendance at the public hearing on June 13, 1988 were Mr. McDowell who indicated he had no comments and Mr. Lindstrom, the resident at 1315 Woodhill Avenue, who felt that he should not be assessed because there was no benefit.) Because of the 2-2 vote at the time the Council on a 4-0 vote tabled it to July 11, 1988 after the formal closing of the public hearing. On June 27, 1988 after discussions with staff regarding the concern for the project it was placed back on the agenda and on a 4-0 vote the project was approved. DIS_C_U_S_S_IO_N - Subsequent to the 6/27/88 meeting based on the newspaper report the property owner :,,ecame apprised that the project had been approved. When the project was staked out on either July 14 or 15th at a five foot offset from the edge of the road (at a 24 fcot width) the prope-ty owner became extremely concerned that that was not where the road had been originally staked out. As a result of that Councilmember Peterson visited the site on Tuesday, July 19tt dhen construction was to begin. The staff met with Councilmentber Goetten and the City Engineer at approximately 2:00 p.m. that day. Public Works Director and myself met with the property owner on the to at 4:30 p.m. that. afternoon. The major ssues raised by the pc perty owner are a,,- follows: 1. Payment of the Ue4rade of the Road - The property owners, as i:oted in the minutes, have consistently objected to payment of the r,.ad based on t'.ie fact tha they receive no benefit to > property. It has been indicated to then. that while preliminary financing was approved with the cc.istruction that a pub?.ic hearing and ass^ssment hearing will have to be held prior to the _._sment being spread against the Property. They feel L:,at the per unit basis is unfair as they are the ones that have the least use of Woodhi l l T venue. 2. Road Width - When originally directed uy the Council the width wasF supposed to be al ..2 feet and when staked fur the property owners it was at a 22 foot width. The suhseque .t feasibility study plan and plans 'end specifications were set at 24 feet and no alteration was made to those. I indicated, when I was on the site with t;:e property owners, that because of the fact that the Ci had originally staked the property last fall f,2 t that we would alter --structing the road o a 22 foot width :o the sectir next to their property,. At this pcint jltiough the -_operty owner had indicated the width last fall was acceptable, it is no longer