01-10-11 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 10, 2011 Blesener pointed out that the property owner of 2425 Dianna Lane is requesting surmountable curbing in his backyard. The City Engineer explained in detail the differences between surmountable and barrier curbing. He indicated that the City has given neighborhoods the choice on the type of curbing, although his and Public Works' preference is for barrier curbing. If surmountable curbing is chosen by the neighborhood, the Engineer stated that his recommendation would be for barrier curbing on radius areas. One property owner asked if it would be preferable to delay the improvement of the section of Dianna Lane between B -2 and Reidmond until Reidmond is done in a few years. The City Engineer pointed out that delaying that section of roadway would result in Dianna Lane residents being inconvenienced at the time Reidmond is done. He also noted that that section of roadway only requires a mill and overlay at this time, with the addition of concrete curbing. A property owner asked whether there was an economy of scale in doing Reidmond and Dianna Lane at the same time. The City Engineer reported that to include Reidmond in the Dianna Lane project, actually increases the assessment to Dianna Lane property owners. He also indicated that there is useful life left in Reidmond. Karen Johnson, 2345 Arcade Street, submitted a letter to the City and indicated that it was her position that her property was not benefitted by the Dianna Lane improvement. The City Administrator noted the property has street on three sides, and the proposed assessment is for the side yard abutting Dianna Lane. The Administrator indicated that the situation is a unique one and warrants further study. He indicated, however, that the issue of the assessment would be considered at a later date and he was not prepared at this time to recommend that the property be removed from the proposed assessment roll. Johnson indicated that given the retaining wall, her property does not abut Dianna Lane. She noted that while Arcade Street was a County road, it was her understanding that she could be assessed for any improvement of Arcade Street. The City Administrator disagreed stating that the County does not assess for its street work. The Administrator again indicated that the property is a unique one and further study of the benefits received issue for the Dianna Lane improvement was warranted. Jack Desai, Dianna Lane, noted that the City Engineer is suggesting modifications in the island in the center of the large cul -de -sac. Desai explained the history of how that island came to be. Four Dianna Lane property owners requested permission to install the island for security purposes, and the City approved that request. The property owners put the 12