Laserfiche WebLink
City's dilemma but felt that this alignment had a large negative impact on their land. Mr. <br />Peterson stated if he had his choice, he would suggest staying with the original approved <br />alignment. However, to get the project going, they would accept that negative impact. He <br />pointed out that the property line between the Kuraks and Good Value is in the middle of <br />the road and he asked that in the agreement, that they not end up with the Kuraks easement <br />on their (Good Value) side. He referred to working on schedules and temporary accesses. <br /> <br />Ben Deemer stated he has been trying to get something done on Sunwood Drive for four <br />years. If John Peterson and the Kurak's can agree with an alignment on the adjacent <br />property, he would have no problem with it. He shared the concern about the easement; he <br />felt it should be vacated simultaneously in everyone's favor, ff it is not vacated, he would <br />have a piece of property he couldn't use. <br /> <br />Mr. Peterson stated he would rather have this alignment now than to go through <br />condemnation to have the other alignment. <br /> <br />Mr. Deemer stated that the only thing left to resolve is saving his bank and large trees. <br /> <br />Mr. Jankowki's response to Mr. Deemcr's comments about saving trees is there will be a <br />possibility of changing the section of 400 feet, an area with no parking. <br /> <br />Mr. Deemer stated he will have no problem if this can be worked out. <br /> <br />Mr. Peterson stated "I feel we have agreed. I am not prepared to fight this any more. We <br />will try to work with this and be as sensitive as possible to that little piece of land." <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Beahen and seconded by Councilmember Zimmerman to <br />recommend the northern alignment for Sunwood Drive presented this evening. <br /> <br />Motion carded. Voting Yes: Councilmembers Beahen and Zimmerman. Voting No: <br />None. <br /> <br />Case #1: Review of 1995 Street Maintenance Program <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski presented a table that shows the comparison between the costs <br />anticipated and the actual costs for the 1995 Street Maintenance Program. The program <br />includes eight sealcoats which came in higher and two overlays which came in lower. He <br />explained the assessment process - the city pays 50 percent and the other 50 percent is <br />divided equally among the benefitted property owners. The increase amounts to $6.19 to <br />$24.59 per unit, which is not a significant dollar increase but is a significant percentage <br />increase. He recommended that the amounts be divided in spite of the increase. Mr. <br />Jankowski talked about properties that did not front onto the streets being improved. They <br />had accesses onto County Road and MSA streets, and he asked for the Road and Bridge to <br />address these as far as the assessment is concerned. He added that if these people are not <br />assessed now, they will never be assessed. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Beahen and seconded by Councilmember Zimmerman that the <br />properties should remain on the assessment rolls. All properties have frontages which <br />contribute to the cost of maintaining City roadways. <br /> <br />Motion carded. Voting Yes: Councilmembers Beahen and Zimmerman. Voting No: <br />None. <br /> <br />Road and Bridge Committee/September 26, 1995 <br /> Page 2 of 3 <br /> <br /> <br />