Laserfiche WebLink
Alternative #2: <br /> <br />Consider only public improvements for entire subdivisions. This policy would result in the <br />likelihood that fewer projects petitioned would be successful. It ma>, not entirely address the <br />concern over the arbitrariness of the project boundaries. For example, Gorham's Sandy Acres <br />Estates is immediately adjacent to the unplatted Gorham's addition. The lot sizes in both <br />subdivisions are similar. Should each of these subdivisions be considered separately or jointly? <br /> <br />Alternative #3: <br /> <br />Establish a minimum project size. Such a minimum could be defined by a minimum number of <br />lots, minimum number of acres, or minimum project cost. The advantage to this alternative would <br />be that it would somewhat depoliticize the issue concerning project area boundaries. Area <br />boundaries would be described so as to maximize the potential of the project's success within the <br />minimums described by the policy. The disadvantage to this alternative is that the minimums <br />would be arguably arbitrary. <br /> <br />Alternative #~: <br /> <br />Require a larger percentage than 35% of the affected property owner for initiating a sewer and <br />water project. This would require a larger degree of support before a project is initiated. <br /> <br />Commission Action: <br /> <br />Based upon discussion <br /> <br />Reviewed by: <br /> <br />Cit-), Administrator <br />City Engineer <br />Zoning Administrator <br />Econorrfic Development Coordinator <br /> <br />R&B: 11/7/94 <br /> <br />Copies also distributed to: <br /> <br /> <br />