My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2016_0912
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2016
>
CC_Minutes_2016_0912
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/6/2016 10:34:29 AM
Creation date
10/6/2016 9:31:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
9/12/2016
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
57
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, September 12, 2016 <br />Page 13 <br /> <br />Mr. Freihammer presented the assessment breakdown between residential and all <br />other lots, noting only one lot falls into the ‘all other’ category. For the feasibility <br />report, the proposed assessment was $27.49/linear foot and the actual rate based <br />on the project costs is $34.18/linear foot or a difference of 24.3%. He explained <br />this is still below the maximum assessment rate of $35/linear foot based on the <br />appraisal conducted in 2015. For the feasibility report, the proposed assessment <br />for non-residential properties was $60/linear foot and that stayed the same as it <br />was capped at the maximum assessed rate determined by the appraiser. <br /> <br />Mr. Freihammer displayed pre- and post-project photographs of the reconstruc- <br />tion. He recommended the Council open the public hearing and approve a resolu- <br />tion adopting and confirming assessments for City Project P-ST-SW-W-15-02, <br />Victoria Street Reconstruction Project. <br /> <br />Mr. Freihammer advised one property sent a letter identifying some problems <br />with the project. Staff has talked with that resident and the Public Works De- <br />partment will be replacing their steps that had been removed. <br /> <br />Mayor Roe noted that was the communication from Tony and Mary Anderson and <br />was included in the meeting packet. He asked the Council if they have questions <br />of staff. <br /> <br />Councilmember McGehee noted the Anderson’s letter also mentioned the steep- <br />ness because the road was raised. Mr. Freihammer responded staff did compare <br />the design versus existing conditions and found with the overall design of the <br />road, the centerline remained the same. The one thing that did change a little with <br />the slope by the stairs is that the old County road had been overlaid significantly <br />so there was a lot of crown in the road. The project reduced that crown and modi- <br />fied that section to reduce the steepness of the roadway. But, it did affect that <br />curb line to make it slightly steeper. Mr. Freihammer explained there were design <br />constraints in that location due to the existing pathway and watermain so there <br />were not many options to lower the road elevation in that location. He estimated <br />the elevation changed less than one foot. <br /> <br />Mr. Freihammer stated staff did meet with the property owner to address this con- <br />cern. The property owner had a stone pathway to that location and Public Works <br />will replace those steps. <br /> <br />Councilmember McGehee asked whether the project impacted the Andersons get- <br />ting out from their driveway. Assistant Public Works Director and City Engineer <br />Freihammer stated it did go up marginally so a landing was provided to create a <br />flat spot and mitigate some of the slope. He stated the property owner had men- <br />tioned last year that it didn’t seem to be a problem but it was an easy winter last <br />year as well. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.