My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1994 05 03
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1994 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1994 05 03
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:36:38 PM
Creation date
5/20/2004 8:42:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
5/3/1994
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E4
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1994 05 03
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Junge agreed. <br /> <br />Sisk wondered who Eastcor Company was and if they owned the <br />property. <br /> <br />Tim Hadjis, Eastcor Company, stated that it is a development <br />company with the owners of the property being McCaslin Limited <br />Liability Company, a different company. Hadjis is part of that <br />company. <br /> <br />Sisk wondered what the cash payment in-lieu-of dedication amount <br />would be. <br /> <br />Hadjis had not calculated the amount. He stated t.hat the <br />Annexation Agreement states that the cash-in-lieu of will be per <br />the property value based prior to annexation, 1985. Hadjis stated <br />that the 1985 value was about $50,000. <br /> <br />Sisk stated that in his reading of the Agreement it says the fee <br />(approximately $6,000) would be paid at the time and it hasn't been <br />paid. Sisk preferred to have the land. <br /> <br />Bob Young, 7871 Left Hand Canyon Drive, Jamestown, Colorado, stated <br />that since the payment is to be at the time of subdivision, the <br />payment would be made now, based on the formula determined in the <br />annexation agreement. <br /> <br />Sisk questioned as to whether the Agreement was valid in terms of <br />what the annexor was supposed to do. He wanted the two projects in <br />force, Children's World and Lafayette State Bank, to get going. He <br />did not feel the developer is being fair to the City (take $6,000 <br />for your open space and take a hike). <br /> <br />Young stated that in addition to the cash-in-lieu, the developer is <br />providing a left-turn lane, all of the recovery for water and <br />sewer, all of the recovery, including half of the median, for the <br />improvements in McCaslin Boulevard, constructing 100% of the full <br />width of Century Drive, providing about twice the open space <br />streetscaping required, a private street across their property for <br />the convenience of the neighbor, and a easement to that extent. He <br />stated that the developer is asking that the City honor the 1985 <br />Agreement and the City make a reasonable effort for cost recovery <br />for the developer in the event that the adjacent properties, that <br />are benefiting from these improvements, do develop. <br /> <br />Sisk asked if their position was that the 1985 Agreement is in full <br />force and effect? <br /> <br />Young was aware of nothing that would have amended the 1985 <br />Agreement. <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.