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 ---.