10-24-95 Council Special Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 24, 1995 lowest assessment. Mrs. Weidt noted that her lot is 44 feet wide, and the assessment is equal to that for a lot almost double in size. Mrs. Weidt indicated that the City is paying 60% of the cost of the project, and suggested that she pay 60% of the cost of a minimum lot. Mr. Weidt felt that the assessment policy should take into account the square footage of a smaller lot. The City Administrator explained at even a small lot generates a certain amount of traffic on the street typical to that of the minimum lot size. The assessment policy tries to recognize that a bigger lot realizes more benefit, as does the odd-shaped lot calculation based on the minimum 10,000 square foot lot. Mrs. Weidt again disagreed with being assessed for 75 feet of frontage when they have 42 actual feet of frontage. Mrs. Weidt stated that they are not generating any more traffic on the street than anyone else. Pedersen suggested that they were generating as much traffic as a minimum 75 foot lot, therefore, are being charged the same. Fahey noted that the Weidt's have the benefit of access to the street just like everyone else. The City Attorney reported that the assessment policy must provide for consistent treatment of lots less than 75 feet in width. It would not be permissible for the Council to rework the policy for one situation without relooking at all lots which are less than 75 feet in width. Fahey noted that in order to make an exception for one lot, the Council would have to make the same exception for everyone else. Fahey acknowledged that anythinq the City does will be perceived by some as unfair. In assessing lots under the City's minimum of 75 feet, the Council determined that there would be the same benefit in terms of access to an undersized lot as there would be to a 75 foot minimum lot. Pedersen noted that the entire policy must be considered, which includes the fact that a minimum assessment was established in that policy. 16