My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/29/05 Study
Public Access
>
City Council Minutes
>
2005
>
01/29/05 Study
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/15/2005 5:38:47 PM
Creation date
2/15/2005 5:37:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Council Meeting
Supplemental fields
Minutes - Date
1/29/2005
SESSIONNUM
1946
TYPE
STUDY
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Study Session Meeting <br />January 29, 2005 <br /> <br />be one with no sidewalks, so long as there are stone curbs, asphalt surface, with micro- <br />surfacing applied a couple of times. Improvement of streets does not refer to <br />maintenance; it refers to paving only. Most of the unimproved streets and alleys are <br />ones that are not cared about: dead ends, little utilized by the public, or closed off. The <br />City policy has always been that if residents want it paved, they should advise the City, <br />who will undertake paving and charge the citizen. He pointed out three particular <br />unimproved streets which he regards as different because they experience a high <br />degree of public use. He asked the Council to order those streets paved and the <br />adjacent residents may object because they will pay part of the cost. One is Bemiston, <br />one is Delmar past Hanley and North and South, connecting Delmar and Gannon. It is <br />a block which is the major entry to Gannondale Subdivision and it is used by hundreds <br />of people every day and it is an eyesore. Residents will need to be given a chance to <br />voice their opinion. Discussion about proceeding with this measure followed. The other <br />is a small section of Gay Avenue, connecting from Old Bonhomme going west two short <br />blocks to the City limit at Lafon Place. It is also heavily traveled by citizens. Mr. <br />Ollendorff wants curb and gutter and asphalt improvement only. Ms. Brot asked if it will <br />blend with improvements made by the City of Clayton and was advised it would be a <br />superior improvement, and he described the differences. Ms. Welsch commented that <br />one street, fronting on some apartments, should be done in Heman Park as well and <br />was told it was on the list, too. Items marked in green on the map were the unimproved <br />streets before the Council for approval. It is another street used extensively for parking <br />and for dropping off. He is not asking the Council to improve any alleys at this time. As <br />a footnote, he said that whenever development is undertaken next to an unpaved street, <br />the City attempts to get the developer to pave that street, so that the City and the <br />residents do not have to do it. As an example he mentioned Hollywood Video and a <br />new house on Gay and Lafon Place. <br /> <br />Mr. Wagner asked if the water drainage would be considered as part of the Gay Avenue <br />street improvement and Mr. Ollendorff said it needed to be fixed immediately and the <br />City could not wait until the street improvement takes place. Discussion relating to this <br />problem followed. The City Manager advised the Council that the final decision on <br />improving these streets was their's. He said he would add them to the agenda and <br />asked Councilmembers to advise him if others should be added. Finally, he said the <br />Council policy is to do nothing to unpaved streets and alleys unless residents petition for <br />work to be done. The City furnishes the petition which states clearly what the cost to <br />residents will be. Some discussion about this policy followed. <br /> <br />Mr. Wagner said the residents in the Gay -Lafon- Teasdale- Westview area, next to <br />Gay Field, suffer overflow parking and want some residential parking consideration, <br />which was turned down by the Traffic Commission. He believes they need support. <br /> <br />Next, Mr. Ollendorff discussed the assessment policy. It is the benefiting property <br />owners who pay about half of the cost of improvement. It always causes an argument. <br />The City believes the street in front of residents' homes benefits them, so they should <br /> Page 6 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.