My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8/15/2000
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2000
>
8/15/2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:14:19 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 3:46:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
08/15/2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
91
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
Sommerfroind property is the same size as the Tri Partner property, so there is equity in the <br />assessment being based on square footage. He explained that staff elected to assess by <br />square footage on this project mainly to benefit those lot owners who have smaller lots but <br />have double frontage on 10* Street and 19'h Avenue. This method has been used many times <br />in the past. Lot 1, at the corner of Oslo Road and 20'h Avenue SW, was not included in the <br />assessment since it has no frontage on either 19th Avenue or 10'h Street. It was not included <br />in the assessment because staff could not justify a benefit. This is a business area and if the <br />sections of road are not paved, then the paved roads would be deteriorated and it would <br />be difficult to maintain the unpaved sections. Staff recommended the assessment based on <br />the above criteria. <br />Chairman Adams had concern about Lot 1 that had not been added to the assessment <br />list; and Director Davis indicated that, although that lot does not directly benefit with <br />frontage on either of the two newly paved streets, it could be added in and would be about <br />1.65 acres. <br />In response to Commissioner Stanbridge's inquiry about the requirement for paving <br />under the Developer's Agreement and the portion that would be reimbursed by the <br />assessment, Director Davis explained that the developer had an option of coming in with a <br />petition on this project and that was communicated early in the process. <br />Director Davis continued that in the Developer's Agreement, the developer still had <br />to pave his frontage as required by the Code, and "if' a petition paving project is approved, <br />then he would be reimbursed for the share that he had paid that benefits the other properties. <br />If it is not approved, the developer still had to pave his frontage and the result would be gaps <br />of unpaved roads in there, which staff felt was not good for the area. <br />In response to Chairman Adams' inquiry as to the number of undeveloped parcels <br />there, Director Davis advised that most of the east side of 19'h was undeveloped and the west <br />August 15, 2000 <br />61 <br />BK 1 14 PG 596 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.