Laserfiche WebLink
side was nearly all developed or site plans have been approved. <br />Mr. Cooksey wanted to clarify that if the assessment were to be corrected to include <br />his Lot 1, he agreed to be assessed the same as Mrs. Cool across the street. He was willing <br />to work it out so that everyone was agreeable. <br />Commissioner Macht was concerned about the appearance of paragraph 21 and <br />thought there should be some sort of a delimiter on any document in the future that has space <br />for additions so this concern does not come up again. <br />County Attorney Bangel will try to get the word out to the departments, including his, <br />about avoiding blank spaces between the text and the signature. <br />Commissioner Macht was still puzzled and thought it might be better to send the <br />whole thing back to staff. He felt that some of the points Mrs. Sommerfroind made were <br />very valid. <br />Commissioner Stanbridge agreed it had gotten complicated and she wanted <br />clarification of the amounts of the assessments and the reimbursement. <br />Chairman Adams asked for an explanation of the delineation of what the developer <br />pays and what is reimbursed, and Director Davis stated that the delineation is based on the <br />frontage. He cited the Code requirement and explained that the developer was required to <br />pave all the roads which front his development so he has continuous pavement from the <br />collector road to his driveways and across the frontage of his project. <br />Chairman Adams pointed out that if the car wash is developed and paving required <br />by the developer, the unpaved sections would only be 150 feet on 19'` Avenue SW and about <br />250 feet on 101` Street SW. She asked if the assessment cost was strictly for that 150 feet <br />and 250 feet, and Director Davis said the assessment covered the entire paving project not <br />just those two sections. <br />August 15, 2000 <br />62 <br />