Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence PWE 5/1/2008 , ~:/ ::. Page I of I LlMBIRD Andrew From: BENOY Leslie Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 3 17 PM To: VOGENEY Ken Cc: STOUDER Matt, MCKENNEY Gary, DRISCOLL Jon, L1MBIRD Andrew Subject: Jackson DIM/ Street Improvements Ken I attended the DIM this afternoon with Matt and Shashl Bajracharya from Lane County Transportation It appears that the County IS requesting that the City annex and take JUriSdiction of 19th Street, at least across the frontage of the Jackson property Also, Shashl indicated that the County would not allow the partial Improvements to Hayden Bndge Stub (24' wide, asphalt mat) as we have allowed with the Annexation Agreement, but rather they would reqUIre a fUllY-Improved section It IS my sense that because the County holds the title to the one-foot strip adjacent to the Jackson property along 19th Street (It appears on Map Spring that there are three separate and adjOining one-foot Wide strips), and the one-foot strip at the east end of the unimproved Hayden Bridge Stub, they may have the ability to reqUire the annexations of these two rights-of-way, If we are to proceed With the Jackson development It does make sense to me to annex all of both of these rights-of-way, and then we can proceed With the subdivIsion and the Improvements as per the Annexation Agreement, Without any County JUriSdiction Given that the Helfrich property Will likely develop (soon?), the remainder of the 1/3 of the street Improvements to both streets can be required to be constructed as part of an Annexation Agreement for the Helfnch property I know that It has been City policy to only annex the right-of-way If the streets are fully Improved, but due to the circumstances I believe our best chOice IS to annex and proceed With the Jackson development and not have the need to obtain County approval on thiS Improvement Please let me know If you would like to dISCUSS, or need me to follow-up With anything Thanks' Les 5/1/2008 Date Received: Planner: Al sf/top! 'I ---.