02/12/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

stockh'older in the Real Estate corporation. fhey - obj ected 'to the assessment'on'-tne' basis ", that it does not benefit the property. Owners have been informed by Planning that they cannot subdivide the property for an indefinite period of time~ Diagram of the area to be served by the installation was displayed showing location of protestant's property . in relation to Edgewood 11th Addition, for which the improvements were p~titioned. It was pointed out that development of Real Estate's property will depend upon development' of property in an adj acent ownership to the south. There is no access, at this time, and Planning has advised Mr. Hill's clients that access is not planned except through development of the other property. OWners of that property are not interested in develop- ment at this time. Mr. Hill said there would be no objection to the assessment if the property could be developed and the improvements used at this time. He felt a legal question was involved inasmuch as the City has authority to assess for improvements only if the improvements benefit the property. Mr. Hill asked deferment of the assessment until the property can be subdivided. Staff explained manner of assessment, how calculated, possibility of development of a portion of the property, and that assessments are deferred only in those instances of trunk lines traversing large acreages with no benefit to the property and usual~y ease- ment is granted in return for the deferment. Also discussed was necessity for bonding application after the assessment is levied to enable sale of Bancroft bonds. If the assessment is deferred the City would have to accept that share until the property is developed.. It was noted that Mr. Hill had presented a protest to this project at the time of bid award. He said they have recently approached the Planning Department with regard to plans for that area and Planning has advised that they are attempting to arrange street patterns which will stop through traffic in that area, hence no access to this par- ticular property except through tbat to the south. He said Real Estate does not wish to improve the property piecemeal, this at the suggestion that two lots to which there is access could be built upon. Mr. Hill didn't feel deferment of the assessment in this instance would set precedent because the situation seemed to be a first-time situa- tion and not likely to recur. He reiterated that the property cannot be developed at this time to the Planning Department's desires. . . Councilman Hershner asked if Real Estate would object to signing a bonding application if the assessment is deferred, this in order to proceed with sale of bonds. Mr. Hill said there would be no objection if the assessment was deferred until the property could be developed. -, Recommendation: Refer for discussion by full Council. 4. 'C-: B. 162 - -LeVying' as'sessments for paving -and '-itorrn-sewe-r -an -Monroe - Street'-fro"m-2'8th='~ Avenue to 550 feet south; sanitary sewer east and west of Monroe Street from south line of Arcadia Park to 150 feet south (72-24) Let~er o~ protest wc;s read from Hrs. Jessie S. Heady, 8190 Orchard Street, Alta Loma, Cahfor?la. She ob]~cted to the amount of assessment, saying it was not in line with the estlmated cost glven ber at time of right-of-way dedication, and to liens assessed for th: fr~ntage of the vacated street. She had objected to the street vacation but her Ob]ectlon at that time was not received until after Council hearing. A protest was also voiced by Daniel D. Mills, 810 West 28th Avenue who asked that assessment again~t his property be decreased on the basis that the'cost was higher than normal for the wldth street constructed his property is the only one assessed which cannot be further developed and thus be~efit from the t t A . is from 28th Avenue _ the '10nroe Street sl'de s ree. ccess to hlS property I will not be used. It was noted that Mr. Mills had objected at time of bid award. - -~ M:~ Mil~s was present and pr~sented his objections. Maps of the area were shown and dlScusslon centered on beneflt to con1er lots assessed on both sides. It was explained that alt~ou~h the present zoning ordin3nce requires 10,000 square feet for duplex lots, those eXl~tlng before adoption of the ordinance are allowed duplexes without meeting that ~equlrement. ~r. Mills said he w?uld have no objection to the assessment if he felt _he value of hlS property was incr.eased proportionately. On questioning from Mr. H:rshner he said.he fel~ ~o~t 50% of the amount proposed would be proper. Staff e~lalned that :educln? an lndlvldual assessment in any project necessitates recalcula- tlon of the entlre proJect to spread that reduction over the balance of the properties assessed. It ~as also explained that cost of the project was higher than normal because of necessary flll. . Councilman Hershner explained the City's policy of assessing for improvements on both sides of a corner lot. It would be inconsistent to reduce this assessment, since the street was in existence prior to improvement and can be used for access . Mr. Mills reiterated his point that all other properties being assessed for the pro]'ect will benefit from' the improvement th h Id b h so ey s. au ear t e major portion of the assessment. 30 2/12/73 - 6