Laserfiche WebLink
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes <br />April 14, 2020 <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />of and will be setting up electric vehicle charges at the City’s Well House Number Five, near the 1 <br />tennis courts so those residents will be able to park there and charge their vehicles. Regarding the 2 <br />retaining wall, the City has plans to replace it for this project. He noted the exact dollar amount 3 <br />staff is not one hundred percent sure but will be around the $50,000 range for that wall and pretty 4 <br />expensive. Currently it is a two-tier retaining wall and each tier is approximately three to four 5 <br />feet so the new wall will be somewhere around that at six to eight feet high and will be a single 6 <br />retaining wall. In regard to the fence, the City is not proposing to do a traditional split rail fence 7 <br />or black chain link or vinyl fence, the City really wants to mimic what is on Silver Lake Road 8 <br />with the wall and fencing. 9 <br /> 10 <br />Ms. Noelle Noyes indicated in the presentation there was something about there had to be 11 <br />something in writing at this meeting and she wondered how that worked given that they are not, 12 <br />as a group, present at the meeting. Mr. Messner explained if the residents would like to appeal 13 <br />their assessment then the resident would need to sign a written intent of appeal and deliver that to 14 <br />City offices. If the resident wished to do that the resident could either sign it at the meeting and 15 <br />request to do so or a written notice can be sent to City Hall that the resident intends to appeal and 16 <br />is something that can be done through email. If the resident does intend to appeal, signing a 17 <br />notice does not mean that the appeal is a done process. The resident still needs to file the appeal 18 <br />to the County Courthouse within thirty days of the adoption of the assessment role and the 19 <br />resident would need to hire an attorney and go through the appeal process after filing at the 20 <br />County Courthouse. 21 <br /> 22 <br />Ms. Noelle Noyes explained that given the extraordinary nature of what is going on right now, 23 <br />the Pandemic and impacts on the economy and people’s health, etc., she was a bit surprised that 24 <br />none of that has been brought up in terms of assessing the potential impact of this under 25 <br />completely changed circumstances from when the project was first brought up and talked about. 26 <br />She knew that people in the neighborhood have been furloughed already and there is a lot of 27 <br />unemployment and it is unclear whether or not that is going to improve or not so it is somewhat 28 <br />surprising to her in a disappointing way that there has not been some sort of more at least 29 <br />information discussion about the potential impacts of the new situation on this pretty large cost 30 <br />of thirteen to nineteen thousand dollars if paid as a part of taxes. 31 <br /> 32 <br /> Ms. Sara Atwood indicated the City came out and marked where an easement is going to be on 33 <br />her property and it is quite a large chunk of her property and she is not able to put anything on 34 <br />the easement, such as the shed her family want there and indicated the easement will really 35 <br />impact their land and what can be enjoyed. Mr. Messner explained the wall itself is on the 36 <br />property line and the purpose of the easement is for the construction of the retaining wall and for 37 <br />the installation of the storm sewer that needs to be replaced. There is an existing storm sewer in 38 <br />Ms. Atwood’s yard in that location and that line needs to be replaced because it is failing, and the 39 <br />side of the embankment is washing out and needs to be repaired. These are improvements that 40 <br />are necessary for the project. If the line is replaced the City is asking that a proper easement over 41 <br />that is placed in order to access and maintain it. He noted Ms. Atwood is still allowed to place a 42 <br />shed on that easement which he did explain in an email to her husband on that. The only thing 43 <br />not allowed would be a permanent structure. He noted the easement is only ten feet wide on the 44 <br />property line so by City Code they would not be able to put a permanent structure within that 45 <br />distance anyway due to City setbacks for structures. 46 <br />4