Laserfiche WebLink
for some time. Increased property values results in increased property <br />taxes. <br />Joe Buche, 298 Rose Lane, pointed out that he does not have frontage on <br />an improved sheet, yet will be assessed for the improvement. Buche <br />noted that he has to utilize unimproved Rose Lane for access and has to <br />plow his own access into his house. <br />The City Administrator noted that the Buche property is a unique piece of <br />property that would not be able to develop under today's Code given the <br />lack of improved street frontage. The Administrator pointed ouC that Mr. <br />Buche utilizes streets in the area to access his property; and it is proposed <br />that he be assessed the minimum lot frontage, 75 feet. <br />Anderson asked if Savage Lane was addressed earlier, if a mill and <br />overlay would have been all that was necessary. The City Engineer <br />pointed out that no one knows the standards to which Savage Lane was <br />originally constructed. The City Administrator pointed out that there are <br />streets that were built in the City that were built many years ago, and the <br />CiCy is unsure of the construction standards that were used. The <br />Administrator suggested that Savage Lane may have been put in by the <br />State at the time 35E was constructed as a looped access for the area. <br />Steimer asked which way the one-way would go. The Adminishator <br />stated that the City would like the neighborhood Co voice the preference. <br />The Administrator suggested that if the Council orders the improvement <br />this evening, staff would have a meeting with the neighborhood to review <br />the details of the project, including issues related to the one-way portion of <br />Savage Lane. <br />Anderson stated that his concern with the project was the cost, and <br />suggested that there must be a more cost-effective way to improve Savage <br />Lane. Anderson felt that total reconstruction was overkill. <br />The Engineer again explained that under the City's assessment policy a <br />mill and overlay would be assessed to property owners at a higher rate <br />than the total reconstruction. <br />Anderson asked about a driveway apron for his property, indicating that <br />Che existing apron is in poor condition. The Engineer explained that <br />properties in the reconstructed area would receive 4-foot concrete aprons. <br />He was unsure at this point about aprons in the mill and overlay area. <br />For the section of Savage fiom Sextant to Demont, there were two <br />property owners in support of the project. Steimer stated that he was <br />opposed to the 14-foot one-way section of Savage Lane feeling it was too <br />I1 <br />