2012-04-24_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Ms. Bloom advised that the assessment policy addressed traffic: the number of trips generated per day, accessibility and usage; with the idea that a 32' wide street is sufficient for residential properties. In considering the neighborhood business, Ms. Bloom advised that staff was cognizant that those businesses may be in a residential or a commercial area. However, Ms. Bloom advised that the idea was to establish a threshold; and since commercial property was valued higher than residential properties per square foot, the concept of an appraisal became critical. Discussion ensued regarding examples of types of neighborhood businesses that could be located on a residential street; whether those businesses were seeking additional traffic and the justification for properties not zoned R-1 and R-2 to be assessed up to 50% of the project cost versus 25% based on traffic generation, unlike a typical home business; with the consensus of Members being that most commercial businesses, with few exceptions, could be found on major roadways. Chair Vanderwall spoke in support of the 50% assessment level for properties zoned other than R-1 or R-2. Chair Vanderwall noted that assessments specific to a commercial property (e.g. stoplight at intersection into Rosedale) would be billed directly to that business at 100% if specific to that business; but the City wouldn't want that to apply to smaller businesses. Ms. Bloom advised that part of the planning philosophy was for a higher density and intensity of uses on major streets, and lower intensity on local streets. Ms. Bloom reminded Members that the 25% and 50%were to serve as a threshold. Section l.e Using past development as an example, discussion ensued on the various assessment rates, or lack thereof, at Har Mar Mall and the signal at Victoria Street and Larpenteur Avenue, and applicable cost if any to the City. Section 2 Ms. Bloom reviewed the formulas, and their rationale, for various zoning breakdowns, corner lots, and the philosophy for addressing the short/long sides of lots as applicable without consideration of access points; and commercially-zoned lot calculations and the rationale for those as well. Ms. Bloom noted that the current assessment policy had been revised in 2001, compiling prior, but separate, ordinances. Section 2.b Chair Vanderwall noted that he did not see the actual reference to short or long sides in the language of the policy, with Ms. Bloom concurring, and noting that she would revise language to include it. Chair Vanderwall asked that staff come prepared to the next meeting with pictures providing examples of irregular-shaped lots. Page 5 of 14