|
<br /> , . '. .~~-:t: ' ~' ~
<br /> : Councilman Wood thBught it would be best to receive and file the request for con-
<br /> sideration when other requests for memorials to ~~yne Morse might be received by
<br /> . the Council. He said he had received suggestions such as naming some future
<br /> e j park in Senator Morse' s 'lj~r10,r;; making a museum of his home, renaming a building
<br /> on the campus, etc., and ;ince the city could be involved in an~ of those sug-
<br /> igestions it might be more appropriate to consider this request at the same time.
<br /> ,
<br /> 'Councilwoman Campbell thought if the Council was interested in the change the
<br /> request should be referred to the Planning Commission for recommendation. She !
<br /> noted that she had told Mr. Porter she'didn't think it necessary for him to be
<br /> present to speak in support of his request.
<br /> Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to refer the request to rename
<br /> 13th Avenue "Wayne Morse Avenue" to the Planning Commission for recommnedation. i
<br /> i
<br /> \
<br /> i Council members agre~d with Mayor Anderson's suggestion that the referral in
<br /> \ no way indicated any particular endorsement by the Council, only that the re- I
<br /> I quest had merit and the referral was in response to it. !
<br /> ,
<br /> Mrs. Campbell reported one call in opposition to renaming the street on the b~sis 1
<br /> ; that it would cause c?nfusion in the sequence of numbered streets.. Councilwoman I
<br /> ' Beal saw no reason not to refer the request to the Commission and noted that she "
<br /> had received_a suggestion to rename Crest Drive in honor of Senator Morse. Comm
<br /> i 8/14/74
<br /> e Vote was taken on the motion to refer. Motion carried unanimously. Approve
<br /> ,_. - - ".-.. .'- _ _ .J' _. -- -'.--"""_ ..--... . -','< ,- ~'-"'-- . .
<br /> ~. ~., ~--_.
<br /> Councilwoman Campbell reported a suggestion that consideration be given to naming ',;",_
<br /> a court or plaza in the new Federal building in honor of Wayne Morse.
<br /> B. Fee 'Revision Committee Report - Copies of memo from the Fee Revision Committee
<br /> together with schedule of proposed fees were previously distributed to Council i
<br /> I
<br /> i members. \
<br /> , ,
<br /> i
<br /> ,
<br /> 1 Councilman Wood, chairman of the Fee Committee, explained the approach to setting ;
<br /> I
<br /> i the fees for variou~ building and planning department activities on a 30% or 60%- .
<br /> \
<br /> : of-actual-cost basis. _He said the Committee felt it more fair and equitable for j
<br /> , a portion of the permit fees to be borne by the general public rather than en- 1
<br /> i
<br /> ! tirely by the developer to avoid passing the cost to the individual consumer ,
<br /> \
<br /> ! thereby creating somewhat of an artificial inflationary trend for other housing J
<br /> \in the vicinity of developments. He noted some 010 the considerations taken into
<br /> :account in setting the 30%/60% factor - general benefit to the community as well j
<br /> as the individual applicant, city policy supporting provision of low- and moderate- I
<br /> income housing, support for'social service agencies whose clients cannot pay for I
<br /> i
<br /> ,
<br /> services. Annual review of the fees was suggested, deleting them from the Code I
<br /> and thereafter setting them by COUncil resolution. No fee for appeals was recom- I
<br /> - mended, he said, because of the insignificant amount of staff work necessary for
<br /> processing. Mr. Wood said the fees proposed generally reflected the ratio of
<br /> benefit to those requesting the type of procedure or permit desired. ,
<br /> 'Gary Chenkin, assistant planning direator, added that the Committee,felt fees
<br /> should be waived for certain types of conditional use permits - CIR housing -
<br /> and should be only 20% of actual cost for processing permits applied for by
<br /> social service agencies, defined in the memo. Also, that the 30% for residential ,
<br /> ,
<br /> permits, and 60% for commercial or industrial permits was felt appropriate be- I
<br /> I
<br /> !cause of the proportionate benefit in each case, particulary in view of the con-
<br /> icern for the effect a higher fee for residential permits would have on the con-
<br /> ,
<br /> ~sumer. He said that although the committee was not asked to consider fees for I
<br /> i
<br /> , land division, it 'did suggest the same 30%/60%-of-processing-cost application "
<br /> ,
<br /> ! because the same processes were followed as for other permits. I
<br /> !
<br /> ! In answer to Mayor Anderson, Manager explained that'if the Fee Committee report
<br /> I was approved, the necessary oridnance for Code amendment and resolutions setting
<br /> ( fee schedules would be prepared for public hearing at the August 26 Council meeting.
<br /> Councilman Hershner wondered if the new procedure - fees based on percentage of
<br /> processing costs ~ would require a cost accounting system where each permit would I
<br /> : require a detailed cost analysis to determine the fee. Mr. Chenkin answered that I
<br /> . an analysis of costs would be anticipated about every other year. Permit fees
<br /> would be charged as set out in resolution to be adopted by the Council after the
<br /> proposed Code amendment, then after one year and before two years a'review would
<br /> indicate whether a change was appropriate. If a new schedule was deemed appro-
<br /> priate then it would be brought to the Council for consideration in resolution form.
<br /> -- .- ....-" .- ..-"- ...~. .., . - .-'" ~ . ..-. . . . - ----.-- -- -.. --,-... . - - "- ..... ..' .,_, _ _. _ ____._.... . ._ U'_ ..-- -.- "--;:':-';...<"- ...-.
<br /> --- - h _ . _ ___ .._ . ---
<br /> .. 8/26/74 - 17
<br /> '3'0
<br />
|