Laserfiche WebLink
P9INUTES <br />City Council <br />Sept. 9, 1987 <br />Street <br />Assessment <br />Policy <br />(Cont.) <br />Roy Wilson Addition for lot size as well as removal of dirt and <br />house size. <br />Fahey suggested that the City Attorney research this matter and <br />report at the next meeting whether or not the lots in the Roy Wilson <br />Addition are splitable. <br />Kehn felt that the City's assessment policy adopted in 1967 was <br />appropriate in that side lots would be assessed at a rate of 20% <br />for an improvement. Kehn stated that he would be willing to pay <br />for 100 feet of improvement on Brooks plus 20% of the frontage on <br />his side lot line at this time, if when Brooks is improved, he is <br />not assessed again for his frontage on Brooks. Kehn also stated <br />that no one in the Roy Wilson Addition wants to divide their property, <br />and felt that Council should not bring the matter up. <br />Collova disagreed that the City is trying to divide up the area. <br />Scalze reported that she has had people bring up the subject of <br />dividing their property in the Roy Wilson Addition. <br />Fahey felt that the 20% assessment on a side lot was good if the <br />property was not splitable, however, felt if a property was splitable, <br />the second lot should be assessed 100% of its frontage. Fahey pointed <br />out that past City policy was to forgive 135 feet of the sideyard <br />if a property was splitable, and then assess the remainder of the <br />footage at 100%. <br />Fahey asked when the ordinance was changed with regard to lot depth <br />requirement. <br />The City Attorney replied that the ordinance was changed eliminating <br />a lot depth requirement on December 23, 1981. <br />LaValle suggested that the existing policy be used for assessing <br />street improvement, and if Council wishes to change the policy, it <br />apply to future improvements. <br />Fahey felt that this was the time to set the street assessment policy <br />when the first street improvements are 6eing assessed. <br />Fahey also felt that the City would be hard-pressed to deny a lot <br />split in the area if a proposal meets Code requirements. <br />Kehn pointed out the precedent that has been set in the Roy Wilson <br />Addition. <br />Fahey felt the City Attorney should comment on whether or not the <br />City has a legal basis to deny a lot split in the Roy Wilson Addition. <br />Blesener indicated that the Certificates of Title in that Addition <br />shouldbe reviewed to determine if there are deed restrictions in effect. <br />Page -4- <br />