3/3/1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

b)'That.`the segment of 5th street S.W. between the subdivision. and 82nd Avenue be improved within the amount of right-of-way obtainable (30' at this time) Approximately a_ year ago some property owners in Aerodrome Subdivision initiated a petition to have this road paved. At that time there were not enough property owners in favor, to make a valid petition. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Alternative No. 1- This road could be paved by the owner -developer. The paving and drainage improvement would be constructed within the existing 30' right-of-way. The owner -developer or County Engineering could contact the property owners along the north side of the road and request a 20' road right of way in addition to the 30' existing, thereby making paving and drainage improvements within a preferred 50' right-of- way. If the property owner along the north did not donate R/W, the County would proceed with condemnation and include this in the cost of the project. (See attached map) Alternative No. 2 - This road could be paved by the County under the Special Assessment Program. Right-of-way acquisition would be the same as in Alternative No. 1. At the present time the county graders grade this road and thereby qualifing it for petition paving program. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Staff recommends Alternative No. 2 thereby making paving and drainage improvements within a 50' R/W if obtainable or within the existing 30' R/W, if necessary under the petition paving program. Benefited area to be determined. Funding will come from benefited property owners at 75% and county to pay 25%. As of this date, there has not been any response form Carmela Grove. (See attached letter) Director Davis advised that after the petition came in, a development project came in to increase the platted lots in the Aerodrome area, and one of the conditions of approval was that the road be paved. The question is should we proceed with the petition paving.process, assess the benefited owners and assess the developer his pro rata share, or should the road be paved by the developer himself. Staff's recommendation is to continue with the petition paving. They have been in communication with the developer, who has indicated he would donate the right-of- way, but he would not elect to donate that and pay the assessment also. Staff feels we need the additional R/W and recommends we acquire it by donation and then either the county pick up the developer's $2,800 assessment in lieu of purchasing right-of-way or that it be assessed to the other benefitting owners. Commissioner Eggert believed if something comes in as a condition of final plat approval, the developer would have to pave the road, and Director Davis agreed, but noted that the question is whether that is equitable when other people share in 61 BOOK 67 C'A E 16 MAR 3 1987