Ordinance No. 19918 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City participation in the project costs was $511,964 and includes payment for the major storm sewers, street lights, extra width, intersections, the bike path, and the overlay from Luella Street to Coburg Road. PROPERTY 4wNER CGRRF~SPDNDENCE Staff has had contact with two ~2} property owners with panhandle lots, who have voiced concern about the amount of their assessment. Kim ~i Debbie Larson, Tax Lot # 17-03-21- 32-03903 (see map}, were apparently told by the builder that their assessment would be between $200-300; the actual amount is $3,732.55. Greg & Maureen Mills own two panhandle cots, 17-03-21-24-TL41503 and 17-43-21-24- TL41501 see map}, and claim the 60-foot equivalent for the back lot amounts to a "double penalty". TL41501 is vacant. In both cases, staff explained the rationale for a minimum assessable width. The Intent of Section 7.175 regarding the 60-foot minimum frontage is that it's a means of creating equity. where one lot might be assessed for 85-feet, a panhandle lot with 15-feet of frontage would be assessed for 64-feet. Both lots have the potential to equally use the road. ~t would be unfair to change the panhandle lot only far the 15-feet. The 60-foot minimum has long been a practice identified in the Municipal Code. The final assessable costs for 20-foot paving are slightly higher because the cast of Right-of- VVay acquisition exceeded the estimated cost at the LID hearing by $28,659. The total cost far sidewalks increased due to the additional cast of constructing mailbox stands and associated sidewalk widening and inclusion of sidewalk excavation cost. The decrease in 36-foot wide paving cost is attributable to an increase of front footage assessed, in particular to panhandle lots, vacant .at the time of the LID formation. The final improvement costs are slightly higher than quoted at the local improvement district hearing. However, they are comparable to typical projects of this size. PUBLIC G, FINDINGS AND RECD ATI4NS Staff provided the Hearings official with a Memorandum which outlined the above information. A public hearing was held concerning the project on May 12, 1993, at 6:00 p.m., in the First Floor Conference Roam of City Hall II. Hearings Official Jack A. Billings presided. A copy of Minutes from the meeting are attached as Exhibit "1". As revealed in the minutes, two members of the public addressed the hearing. The first, Maureen Mills, was upset that she did not receive a notice regarding one of her two properties. From a staff comment after the public hearing, the Hearings Official FINDINGS AND RECaMMENDATI~NS -- 2