Ordinance No. 20257 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ ,~ ~ '~ 5. ~J i ~,=~)nc new ~yers F~oac~ was better than the old road. While lv~ro uernxe reit that there, might be a need for some minor corrections, the road Was an overall improvement. Mr. Lemke asked about his particular assessment. He noticed that his property is 120 f~et wide along Ayers Roa& He wondered why, since Mr. Klope had eXPlained ~at upper Hmit on assessment was 100 f~et £br sidewall~s.· the Lemke's neighbor, had a wSder parcel, but was paying more. Mr. Klope and Mr. Genovese ext~lained that, despite appearances on the g~ound, the neight~orkng tots were actually no'trow strips o~'la~d gi~i~g access to back ~treas. The actual fron~ footafie of the pr(~perty that the Lemke s suggested was their neighbor was less than the Lemke } property. Mr~ Lemke ir~dicated that their one concern about the construction was the placement of a street light so that k shown directly into their yard and home. Mr. Lemke indicated that he had st~ken with the constmcfior~ contractor} and they had indicated that it wotdd be possible to add a shield that would block the light from their yard. Mr. Genovese promised that he would look into the possibility and the cost of a reflector for the s~eet light. Mr. and Ms. Wultbrandt offered that the½ appreciated the additional ~lluminafion provided by the street lamp outside their yard. Ms. Wullbrandt ~ndicated that she wanted to also express her request that she felt that the City Council should hold a public hearing on the proposed assessment Ms. Wullbrand~ then went on to express several concerns on t~eh~tf of the R~Verpointe Home Ovmers Association. Their major concern was with some of the street trees along the front of the RJverpoint subdivision. Ms. Wullbrandt explained that while the original plan had been to ~emove some trees, the original plans ~lso included the retenfio~ of ~everal large trees along the fight-olJ-way. ~ne o~these trees had been damaged by the contractor ~d had the~fOre b~en remo~Te& Ms. Wullbrandt indicated that s~e understood that the City had fined the contractor for the damage to the tree. On behalf of the Pdverpoint Home Owners association, Ms. Wullbrandt requested hat the Home Owner s Assocmtmn be compensated for the street that it had planted to replace the trees that were removed. Project Engineer Brian Genovese expbined that the tr~es that Were removed were in the public right-Of-way, and that the City had itself planted numerous trees in the area. hs. ~Wull~randt in~ticated that she u~derstood the location of the trees, but she felt that there had been an understanding with the Home Owners Association that the Association would be reimburse& Mr. Genovese indicated that he was not aware of such a promise and would investigate further. The next member of the public to speak was Dan Edgar~ of 55 Ayers Road. He began by expressing his opinion that residents should not be assessed because the projec~ is ~ot c(;mpi~te. B~;ause Mr. Klope had indicated that the CiLv wold be requiring ~h~ contractor to resurface the road, Mr. Edgar felt that any assess~nent was premature. Mr. Edgar also expressed h~s dissatisfaction with the overall quality of the work, mentioning es~;cially the intersection of Gilham and Honeywood, wt~iCh l~e felt was ba~t because Of th~ chan~e in road levels. Mr. Edgar explained that h~ felt the project was poorly designed and was overbuilt for the need. He was concerned about such safety m~tters as