2007_1008_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

i � .} � 5 � � � � ]0 ]1 ]= ] 'i l� 1� 1 fi ]r 12� I� �� �1 �� �� �� -� 5 �6 �� �� �� 3�h 3I �� 3� 3� _� � �� �� 3� � �� AD �� �? �3 � �� �f� �� �K �9 than the resulting increase in property value and this parcel is not buildable, staff recommends removing this parcel from the assessment roll. Recommendation: Eliminate property from assessment roll. 3. Oral & Written Objection: Ste hanie & Robert Kelse , 455 S. Owasso Blvd Assessment detail: 012923210017 455 Owasso Blvd S 120.00 ft �2_976.85 Mr. Kelsey's driveway, prior to reconstruction, had a slope between 5& 6%. When the City reconstructed his driveway it met all city standards for driveways, however, it was steeper, $.2°/a, then it was prior to reconstruction. Mr. Kelsey was concerned regarding the steepness of the driveway because it caused his trailer to scrape when exiting and entering his property. Staff inet with Mr. Kelsey to discuss his concez�ns, we felt obligated to return the driveway to the preconstruction condition. We offered to have our contractor reconstruct 11 feet of the driveway to achieve the preconstruction slope. The city's contract price for removal and replacement was $811. Mr. Kelsey wanted the driveway to he flatter than what it was previously. As a result, he elected to hire his own contractor. The City offered to reimburse Mr. Kelsey the amount we would have paid our contractor, $81 l, and we waived the City's driveway permit fee of $35. The Kelsey's contractorremoved and replaced 16 feet of the driveway, creating a slope of 3.3%. The cost to complete this work was $2,495. They requested that the City reimburse 50% of the cost $1,247.50. In the interest of working with Mr. Kelsey we agreed to share in 50% of the cost of the driveway reconstruction based on what it would have cost to the City to remove and replace 16 feet of driveway at our contract prices. The matter of Mr. Kelsey's driveway is a separate issue that was resolved last year with this reimbursement. His additional cost was the result of his decision to hire his own contractor rather than having the City's contractor complete the driveway reconstruction. When applying state statute 429, the assessment has to treat similar properties equally. This parcel is a residential lot. All of the residential lots in this proj ect are being assessed for this project at the same rate. As a result we do not recommend any adjustment to the assessment. Recommendation: No adjustment to the assessment. 4. Written Objection: Kathleen & David Rothenberger, 445 Turnstone Court Assessment detail: 012923210011 445 Turnstone Ct � 139.48 � $3,460.09 012923210012 0 Owassa Blvd S 110.00 $2,728.78 The Rothenberger's own two properties along S. 4wasso Blvd �; one lot that directly abuts S. Owasso Blvd and a second "flag" lot, that has a driveway access to S. Owasso Blvd. The lots were created in 1977. The "flag" lot, 445 Tumstone Ct, is considered an "odd lot" with its rear dimension differing from the �ronx by more than 25%. As a result, while there is only 42.49 feet of frontage on Page 4 of 6