Laserfiche WebLink
~zi~t~TFs <br />City Council <br />1lugust 2.3. 19£39 <br />T~'ahey reported ihat these are some of the details that will <br />be discussed at the september 1!~th meeting of the P1lnning <br />CommS.ssion. <br />Mr. Fahey introc1uced the follov~inc~ resolution Zncl moved 9.ts <br />adoption: <br />RFSOLUTION IVO. f39-8-39?.. - CODITINUTID7G `PTIE <br />PUBLSC HFk112IPIG Oi~l THE SLUP~7SI3RL,1~~?D PROPOSFIL <br />UD]~hSL THk? S£PTEP!1E3~1~ 27v 19F1~ CITX CO[71~1CIL <br />P•9EP~'ITTG PENDIr7G FURTfIk~.P. RF'COP'Ii'~ITDID~ITION PROA2 <br />'i"x1E PL~ANN7B7G COD7~~[ISSION <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconcied by Mre ~3lesener. <br />11yes (5) Fahey, I3lesener, LaValle, Collova, ,~calze, <br />Nays (0). <br />Resolution decJ.arecl ado,nted. <br />RFCPSS A~ this poi.nt in the meetingo 9a11. P.P•1., the Council took a <br />sYaort recess. The meeting was reconvenecl at 9a?0 P,P1. P-1r.. <br />LaValle left the mee~ing during the recess. <br />IP1P. NO, Fahcy o~ened tkie public hearing on the proposed assessment <br />gQ-~6 of Improvement DTo, HII-7.6, the irnprovement oi Carla L~ane £rom <br />CnRt.~A LnD7S ICeller Park~vay to x~ia~r Parkway by patchit~y, storrn se~,rer <br />rep~ir and bi~urninous overJ.ay. Total amount to be assessecl <br />is $~:0,190. <br />7'he Ci~y Fngineer reported tYx1t ~he total cost of the <br />irnprovernent is $~•0,190 which ~mounts to a per lot assessment <br />oi 51,527.69. 7'he original estirnate was 51,57.0 per lot. <br />Fahey notec~ receipt of ~ letter from P4r. and P~irs. Sicibsted <br />stating their opposition to the assessment and <br />dissatisfaction with the U~ork done by the contractore <br />The City rngineer re~orted that he has looked at the <br />Skibsted ~ropertyo tvhich h~s one drivev~ay on Reller Parkceay <br />and another on Carla I~ane. The frontage of the Slti.bsted <br />~roperty on Carla Lane includes about 3 feet of curbing and <br />about 25 feet oi clriveway, <br />E~ahey read the Skibstecl letter cahich stated tha~ they <br />objected to the project original.ly unless additional cur.bing <br />~aas installed along that portion of their property on T.;eller <br />Parkt~~ay. `i'his was not <]one> The Skibsted's also object to <br />the poor quality of c~orlc. <br />Fal~ey pointecl out that the City Council can adont the <br />assessment roll for tYxe project, and address the issues <br />raised by the Skiosted'N at a later date, pendi.ng a <br />r.ecommendation from the Ci~y rngineer. <br />Scalze aslced ii the City is ~aithholding a~ercentage of: the <br />cost of the contr~ct frorn the contractor penc~ing City <br />P1ge 17 <br />