Maurie Jacobs Improvements - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

Date: 11/12/92 From: John Etter CERMJFE - RIS1 To: Joe Ferguson CEWEJMF - RIS1 cc: Johnny Medlin CEWMJRM - RIS1 Subject: Maurie Jacobs Improvements Thanks for your answers to the questions. Somethings seem pretty clear cut, while others leave room for some clarification /lobbying. What follows deals with the latter. On SDF eligibility, the improvement of Polk Street as an assessment (east side only) should qualify in that new on- street parking would be provided that benefits the city as a whole. Up to 16% of costs should be eligible based on the city -wide projected growth for the period used in the development criteria for SDC rates - -over 20 years it was 16% city wide. The same would be true for off - street parking at the River House. A community garden improvement, however, might be viewed differently. While we have documentation of gardeners residing substantially away from the Whiteaker Neighborhood, over 90% are from within, and an SDF rate would need to be determined that reflects projected growth for the neighborhood only. Whether that's more or less than 16% I couldn't say without talking to people in City Planning. New multifamily housing is going in; the increase should be projected soon as part of the Whiteaker Plan Update. I think the right of ay by adverse possession concept is logical, but first, doesn't someone have to claim it? I want to put on my park advocate hat first and suggest that such a claim be made after the construction. Can whoever makes the final determinations about R/W and assessment of adjacent property consider the unique aspects of the N. Polk situation? The funding for the street appears to exist without assessment needed. It is untraditional in that its source is memorial donations and matching state grant, which should help keep such improvement from becoming a precedent that would haunt the City in the future. Neigbbors of the unpaved N. Polk St. at the Whiteaker Neighborhood meeting last night indicated that they would not support the improvement if assessment was a factor. This means that, given the income level of people likely to live there in the forseeable future, no improvement would occur. Since an objective of the donated funding to is to finish the park, and since there is a City objective for having paved streets, I hope interpretations can be made that would allow this project to move ahead. It could be built as a park road (to City standards), then claimed as R/W after funding benefits are realized. The issue of whether or not projects are a part of an approved plan may also need attention. The code defines such plans as the CIP and Metro Plan. The Parks and Recreation Plan is a functional plan under the umbrella of the Metro Plan which should cover objectives and proposals therein. One completed and one proposed M. J. improvement are listed in the Plan. I hope that others could be interpreted as being in the plan since a master development plan was publically prepared for this park as per direction of the Parks Plan. My next meeting with this group is tentatively scheduled for 11/18. I hope someone can respond appropriately to my comments and questions by then.