My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-10-99 Council Workshop Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1999
>
03-10-99 Council Workshop Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 5:08:03 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:58:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />MARCH 10, 1999 <br />The Engineer reported that the weight restrictions are only placed in late <br />winter and early spring to protect the street while the frost is comin~ out of <br />the ground. <br />Fahey pointed out that the original proposal was to assess Cobblestone <br />Village $51,400 and that staff's recommendation reduces that assessment <br />to $12,152. Fahey asked if this recommendation would set precedent for <br />future projects. <br />Scalze asked how using front footage as a basis for this assessment would <br />affect the Canabury complex as an example. Scalze felt that whatever <br />method is used to assess this improvement, it should be one which could <br />be applied fairly to other townhome developments in the City. Scalze felt <br />that Cobblestone may have an unfair advantage since they have such <br />limited frontage on Minnesota Avenue. <br />Morelan agreed and pointed out that if Cobblestone Village was not <br />located on the end of the street, the assessment might be higher. Morelan <br />was not sure that Option #2 was equitable. <br />Fahey asked why staff recommended Option #2. The City Administrator <br />replied that stafftried to look at equity among the abutting property <br />owners. Given frontage as well as traffic volumes for each property, it <br />was felt that Option #2 was the most equitable. <br />The City Engineer pointed out that in applying the strict interpretation of <br />the City's Assessment Policy and then considering the level of assessment <br />for each individual property, it did not seem that the Cobblestone Village <br />assessment was equitable. The Engineer stated that the end result had to <br />be considered as well as what a residential property would pay in <br />comparison to a large commercial property in comparison to a commercial <br />fast-food use with high trafFc volumes. <br />Fahey asked how the townhomes and condos on Demont Avenue were <br />assessed. The Administrator replied that in assessing the improvement of <br />Demont Avenue several years ago, assessments were based on front <br />footage with that assessment then divided by the number of units to come <br />up with the per unit assessment. <br />Morelan felt that Option #2 made sense from the standpoint of <br />Cobblestone Village's location at the end of the street. However, if a <br />townhome complex was located along the street, in the area of the strip <br />mall as an example, the assessment would be much larger. <br />The City Engineer agreed that if the uses along Minnesota Avenue were <br />different, there would be a whole new set of circumstances to deal with. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.