06/23/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Gene Anders, Mrs. King's son-in-loaw and an engineer, was introduced and was also shown the property bought from the Kings for right-of-way, that left over to be deeded to the owner of the abutting property when it was developed, and the e lengths of the two frontages on which assessment was to be collected and deferred.' Mr. 'l'eitzel fur-ther explained the assessment policy of the city with regard to street ffidths'- 2S:"foot basis for existing single-family, 36-foot basis for new subdivisions or other new development to higher than single-family use. ,~ ~ - - --- -.-- Ms. MacInnis thought that "assessment deferral" was an incorrect term, that it should more properly'be "payment deferral." She stated objections set forth in her letter previously presented to the panel and staff. She thought it specula- tive that the improvement would increase the .value of the property and wondered if the city' could assure the.property owner that the value of the property was greater than it would have been with only a 28-foot paving. She explained further her contention of inequitable assessment if front footage of the curve was the basis, comparing that to a corner lot on which she said the code provided the narrower side would be the basis for calculation of assessment. Upon que~tioning from Mr. Williams, Mr. Teitzel explained that assessments against corner lots were based on both frontages, the code provision referred to by Ms. MacInnis applied only to setbacks. Also, that the subject property had frontage only on the r~- located road. Councilman Williams further explained the city assessment policy and use of front footage as basis as opposed to square-foot area in calculating sewer assessments. In response to his questioning, Mr. Teitzel further clarified the policy with re- gard to assessing on the basis of only a 28-foot width against single-family residential zoned property, deferring collection of the difference between that .and the amount based on the 36-foot width until such time as property is sub- . . divided, developed, or zoned to higher use. He said any subdivision or development to higher use would "trigger" collection of the deferred amount. Upon further. questioning, Mr. Teitzel said fairly large parcels, with only a single-family - residence, such as that owned by Mrs. King, could be assessed ona 28-foot basis only if it appeared impractical to subdivide, however that was unlikely. Councilman williams questioned further the concern expressed~by Mrs. King about the assessment when it would not be collected until her property was developed. Ms. MacInnis said the total assessment - $7,000+ - would become a lien on the property and would deter prospective buyers. The street as improved was hazardous - pot~ntial for houses was questionable. She wondered if the city would issue building permits for that portion of the property abutting the curve. Mrs. King, she said, had neither the financial ability nor the experience to develop the property herself, the value lay in what she could offer someone else. Mrs. King added 'that several buyers interested in the property before the street improvement were not now interested. because of the traffic and noise. She said the driveway to her home was,hazardous and still would be even if some of the shrubbery was removed. Councilman Hamel commented that the panel could not be concerned .with value of the property, it was concerned only with the assessment and who was responsible for paying it. Mrs. Ivan Picard, 945 East 43rd Avenue, a neighbor of Mrs. King's, commented on taking of the property to install a street - and a dangerous street - that was, not requested by the property owners. She said very little was given for the property because it was. undeveloped, now the city was saying it was undeveloped and still assessing it. Mr. Williams explained further that although the portion of the assessment de- - ferred would become a lien on the property, the only time that would be meaning- ful would be when that property was developed. And at that time, he said, the street would nO longer solely benefit the community, but would become also a benefit to the individual property owner. 6/23/75 - 20 350