2004-02-23 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Session 1912 February 23 2004 Ollendorff said he is not sure of the exact location of the wall, but believes it to be just south of the center line. It is the responsibility of the property owner to the south who is objecting, whether or not the City vacates, he reported. He is responsible for maintaining it, according to the City Attorney, but the matter will be clearer if the City does vacate. Mr. Wagner, seeking clarification, asked if the City does vacate, will the property owner be responsible to maintain the wall to code. Mr. Ollendorff said "as he is now. It does not change; the situation just becomes clearer." He quoted a memorandum from the City Attorney, which said that when property is dedicated for public use, the adjacent owners continues to own it, but give the public easement to use it. The responsibility for maintenance of the wall belongs to the owner to the side of the center of the easement. If the City maintains it as public right-of-way and keeps it and then improves it, Council policy is to assess the adjacent residents for the cost of the maintenance. Theoretically, he said, the City could keep the alley and the Council could decide to install a wall, build it, and charge the owners for the cost or for some portion of the cost. Mayor Adams said he understood it to be like an easement. Ms. Colquitt agreed with vacating the alley but is not sure the residents understand they are responsible for taking care of the property. Mayor Adams pointed out that residents are responsible for maintenance whether the City vacates it or not. Mr. Lieberman asked if the property owner on Olive installed the retaining wall, the fence, and the existing structure there? Mr. Ollendorff said he was not sure, but assumed that they did. Mr. Lieberman said this information was contained in the statement made by the property owner. Ms. Welsch said she is not against vacating the alley property, but if the City has not been able to force compliance on the owner since 1999, will vacating force the owner to do it now? She did not understand that the owner built the wall, but she knew that he had built the five-foot addition on the back. She quoted from Mr. Ollendorff letter, which said" ... leave ownership as is and the City will start property maintenance." She then asked, "While we decide the vacation, if we maintained it, could we than charge the adjacent property owners as we do when we go in and cut weeds?" Mr. Ollendorff responded that the City probably could not charge for weed cutting because that would not be an improvement, it would be maintenance. If we approve the property, rebuilding the wall would be considered improving the property and that we could assess the owner: not for weed-cutting, not for removing the fence, but replacing or rebuilding the wall would require recommending assessment of the owner. Mr. Ollendorff the reported there are four property owners, two on each side. Two property owners who use it for driveway purposes and would like the alley vacated, both thought that it had been vacated previously. Mr. Wagner said that he thought it would be prudent to delay the decision, to clarify issues with the four property owners. Since they requested the City to replace the wall, they should be advised that the City is not going to do that and that if the City vacates the alley, property owners will be charged. Their request needs to be clarified. Mr. Ollendorff advised that these property owners were notified of the public hearing; the record shows on-going communication with them, and the action tonight is to hold a public hearing. Since the bill is being considered for adoption, he said, the Council may wish to not act on it Page 5