Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/07/2002

Home

Pl10 Presentation City Engineer Jankowski stated that the public hearing held on September '24, 2002, for the two overlay projects, #02-1 t and #02-12 was continued until this meeting. Testimony at the previous meeting suggested that the assessable project cost of IP #02-11 should be divided among more than 143 units, since PIN 28-32-25-11-0012 (the south side of 145t~ Avenue) has 930 feet of frontage. The unit assessment project for #02-12 (MSA Streets) is determined by that for #02- 11. Thus, this issue affects both overlay projects. Although the City's current street assessment policy is based on the number of units rather than frontage, there is some past precedent for using frontage in rare circumstances, inthe 1993 program, 161~t Avenue between Variolite and Armstrong Boulevard was overlayed. The City (Central Park) and one property owner (then Federal Cartridge) comprised the entire ownership on the north frontage of the half-mile street. Application of the formal policy would have resulted in an unusually high assessment for the size of lots receiving benefit. In this case, the assessment would have been $1,400 per unit when similar sized lots on other projects were being assessed $423 that year. In this instance, one hail of the assessable project cost was assegsed based on frontage to the .two properties on the north side, while the remaining assessable half was divided among the number of units on the south side of the street. If the Council wished to consider a reduction in the unit assessment cost, the 930 feet frontage of the above PIN number would be the equivalent of 4.4 units, based on the average frontage (204 feet) of the remaining lots on 149th Avenue. Alternatively, the 930 feet would represent the equivalent of 3.2 units when based on the average lot frontage width of the entire project, 296 feet. Perhaps it would be fair to consider PIN 28-32-25-11-0012 to have an equivalent frontage of four lots, and the assessable project cost divided equally by 146 units. This would result in a per unit assessment of $756.01, a reduction of $15.86 over the proposed assessment. The City Attorney had advised staff that the Council may adopt the assessment role of all parcels except PIN 28-32-25-11-0012 so that new notice of assessment can be provided to that owner. Staff recommended that the assessments for IP #02-11 and #02-12 remain $771.90 as initially proposed. The main reason for the recommendation stemmed from the fact that PIN 28-32-25-11-0012 does not cause the unit assessment to be unusually high relative to similar projects. In fact, adjusting the assessment based on the above analysis would result in'only a two or three percent difference. There are numerous cases where single lots have approached or exceeded several times the average lot frontage in past street programs, and have been charged to a single assessment. Councilmember Zimmerman inquired if it was legal for the City to assess the other lots. City Attorney Goodrich replied that the City would have to schedule a new public hearing and give those parcels notice of the assessment. Councilmember Hendriksen stated that the Council has seen a sketch plan for the large lot, which indicates several units along 149th and inquired if those units could be assessed. City Attorney Goodrich replied that those units are not legally divided lots. The Council can at this time reconsider assessing the additional lot that has been legally subdivided. The problem City Council/October 8, 2002 Page 6 of 16 I I I I I I ! I i I I I I