AgdaPkt 2013-09-23 Closed and Regular

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 109 U +-aa- In September of 1988 another staff report was issued to the Council. The report recommended that the "project'° boundary include all parcels fronting on Laurel Way. At the Council meeting of September 12, 1988, the Council adopted the staff recommendations. Since 1970 and the failure of the City's attempt to form an assessment district, the whole area has been in limbo. The only exception was the Hatfield's property which was built sometime after 1985. i believe that we should be allowed to obtain a building permit on Lot 21 for the following reasons: i. Lot 21 is the closest vacant lot to Highland Avenue. 2. The land is considered "in fill" because there are homes on both sides of this lot and there are homes built further down the street, beyond Lot 21. 3. The street and all utilities are in, beyond the property line. a. The property should be able to meet current City codes. s. The property does not have the substandard conditions of the other lots. 6. The property does not have any mature trees. Lot 21 is not like all the others that are beyond the paved end of the street. The property doe! not have the health, safety and economic problems of the properties beyond the end of the road. Considering these facts, I believe Lot 21 should be considered a buildable lot on its own merits. I believe the staff report addresses the difficult development problems with the properties bead the paved road. In the outer lying lots, there are indeed flooding problems, and extensive improvements are needed to develop those parcels. But Lot 21 is not near the problem areas and should be dealt with individually. I sincerely feel to force Lot 21 into that area would be grossly unfair and unreasonable because it does not have any of those problems. Even today, 30 years after an assessment district was attempted, chances of forming the district are next to impossible. As a reminder, my research showed that the Hatfields were allowed to build their house after the1985 report, even though their property was beyond the paved road and utilities had to be extended to their property line. They also did not have to widen their side of the street. I do know a new house was built in 1995 on the Hatfield's property. The Hatfields were allowed to build their house even though it was further out beyond the Georges' residence and well past where Lot 21 is located. I am asking for the same consideration the Hatfields received, because Lot 21 already has the utilities has the proper street width is on the paved se meat of Laurel -Way, and -is an "in -fill" lot. 2