|
<br />e
<br />
<br />"'lIIl
<br />
<br />51{)
<br />
<br />3/22/71
<br />
<br />~I
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />Ii
<br />I
<br />
<br />City Manager pointed out there is a public hearing prior to awarding bids, at which time all parties
<br />are requested to appear.
<br />
<br />II In answer to Mrs. Beal, Mr. Morrow said he was sure Mr. Lindly had talked to the developer about
<br />I, the placement of the road. He had commented to Mr. Morrow that he had been told informally that no
<br />II road could be placed that close to his home. iJIhe City would not permit this illegal placement.
<br />
<br />i:
<br />'I Mr. George Lindly stated that when the City Assessor assessed the frontage he had said they could
<br />II not put a road through which went against any code of the City. In answer to the City Manager
<br />'I~ I
<br />Mr. Lindly said he was aware the bids were to be awarded, but that was all he was aware of.
<br />II
<br />
<br />:,!
<br />II
<br />II
<br />Ii
<br />'I
<br />I,
<br />II
<br />I'
<br />II
<br />"
<br />I'
<br />il
<br />
<br />:1
<br />il
<br />it
<br />'I
<br />II
<br />!!
<br />
<br />Manager pointed out that, under the process of the City, the public hearing before bid award is the
<br />time when protests to the project are heard from people who will be assessed for the cost of the
<br />project.
<br />
<br />Mr. Lindly said that, at that time, he had not thought he would be assessed for that portion.
<br />
<br />Mr. Morrow thought if a person placed a road entirely on his own property with an intervening freeze
<br />strip, he in effect was limiting access to the neighborhing property, and he paid the'full cost of
<br />the street.
<br />
<br />Manager said this had bee.n done, but it has to be recorded.
<br />
<br />It
<br />:i
<br />:1
<br />"
<br />'I
<br />il
<br />'I
<br />I'
<br />"
<br />I'
<br />.1
<br />
<br />Mr. Morrow said this had been through the Planning Commission and he did not think it should have been
<br />passed in this manner. City Manager said it is a violation of the zoning ordinance to place a house
<br />closer than a required setback distance from the street, but there is no law against placing the
<br />street closer than that to a house.
<br />
<br />Mr. Hershner asked whether Mr. Lindly or Mr. Morrow were present at any Planning Commission hearings
<br />when the subdivision was approved. Mr. Morrow said he was not involved until July, but he felt
<br />sure Mr.' Lindly must have received some notice. He took no formal action at that time.
<br />
<br />:,
<br />[I
<br />d
<br />Ii
<br />ii
<br />Ii
<br />"
<br />'I
<br />I,
<br />
<br />II
<br />'I
<br />
<br />Mrs. Beal felt the road was actually injuring Mr. Lindly. The City Manager suggested that, if the
<br />Council was convinced there was actually no benefit to this property, the matter be referred to
<br />the City Attorney for determination of legal alternatives. In the Manager's opinion there was some
<br />benefit to the property, since existBBce of the street enabled the owner to use the rear portion of
<br />the lot. It would appear to him that the smaller portion of the lot could be used for a duplex,
<br />since it is a corner lot. Existence of the street would certainly provide an opportunity for
<br />subdivision.
<br />
<br />Mrs. Beal w~s concerned that some improvements are done to benefit one property owner, without any
<br />benefit to other abutting properties.
<br />
<br />Ii Mr. Morrow pointed out that the portion being discussed for duplex lot was already utilized for Mr.
<br />:l Lindly' shame, and that a duplex could not be built without destroying his home.
<br />
<br />'I
<br />I,
<br />I'
<br />:1
<br />il
<br />I,
<br />ii
<br />,I
<br />"
<br />.,
<br />tI
<br />I
<br />'I
<br />
<br />After Council discussion about referring this matter to staff for further study, Mr. Morrow said he
<br />would be glad to work with the staff to attempt to find a solution.
<br />
<br />Councilman Hershner was concerned who would be assessed for the paving, since it has already been
<br />done. City Attorney pointed out it was possible to reassess the property, but he did not know what
<br />could be worked out.
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />ji
<br />II
<br />:!
<br />;!
<br />
<br />City Manager pointed out that it was not Council policy to get involved in determining benefit to
<br />property owners. However, there would be no objection to re-assessment by staff. He pointed out
<br />that there were some problems with the bonding procedure, but he did not feei the Council should
<br />hesi tate to refer this matter back just for that reason. In answer to Mr. McDonald, he pointed out
<br />that notices of assessment would be sent out immediately and property owners would have an oppor-
<br />tunity to bancroft assessments in time for the next Bancroft sale. If the assessment were held over
<br />to the next regular meeting, it could not be scheduled for this bonding sale and would have to be held
<br />over until next spring.
<br />
<br />Mr. Morrow pointed out that they had been told in
<br />to dispute the benefit to Mr. Lindly's property.
<br />staff to see if any benefit could be worked out.
<br />
<br />July they had to wait until assessment had been mad~
<br />He would like an opportunity to get together with
<br />
<br />"
<br />,
<br />"
<br />'I
<br />11
<br />II
<br />II
<br />
<br />"
<br />i'
<br />:1
<br />11
<br />:,
<br />I'
<br />:1
<br />(!
<br />;i
<br />,I
<br />II
<br />I:
<br />:i
<br />I
<br />:1
<br />
<br />In answer to Mrs. Beal's suggestion, that the matter could be worked out before adjournment of the
<br />meeting, City Attorney said it was too complicated to be determined in such a short time. Manager
<br />pointed out a readjustment would require another public hearing.
<br />
<br />-t"':' ..---....-
<br />
<br />Mr~;"~gp6nald ITl9ved~;seconded by Mi>. Gribskov that the bill be read the second time by council bill
<br />nurriberoDlf, with / unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time.
<br />
<br />. .' --:,"",_,"_.;. . - .~- _-.n =-. ,_ ~..--:-_ _,....
<br />All councilmen present vGte~Laye except:'M:r~ ~-'<BeaL}lho voted no. The council bill was read in full.
<br />
<br />-. ":7:'
<br />
<br />'-Mr.'Mqrrow - }iJlnted out that by:' passa.,ge ~:f'ttli:sbilf ,thl3"Counci-IL_.wquld be arb<ib::ari'ly f~?~i:hg the
<br />"Ravi~g would b.~nefhMr. Lindly',< .Be...:..re~5t,the. Tl:otipe oJ assessment arid sajA t1;at> !~is ~,gav~.the, -'
<br />, C01inScll i tselfthe right to determine what would be a just assess)1lent. He rel terated that they
<br />asking an adijmstment in the assessment from $3400 to $1900. This was what they felt w.ould be
<br />equitable for the benefit Mr. Lindly would receive.
<br />
<br />';
<br />were li
<br />
<br />3/22/71 - 20
<br />
<br />..oi1I
<br />
|