|
<br /> r -,- -,- .. _.- ....
<br /> !Ed Smith, parks director, answered that functions of the Joint Parks Committee had ,
<br /> !not been clearly defined, that it was originally formed for consideration of issues ,
<br /> !co~nected with Alton. Baker Park. Mayor Anderson thought Councilwoman Campbell's !
<br /> iPo~nt well taken, recognizing however that property acquisition did not always I
<br /> I
<br /> : follow a timetable. He suggested staff development of some statement for Council I .
<br /> : consideration on the role of the Joint Parks Committee with regard to whether they \ \
<br /> I
<br /> !should review or suggest properties to be acquire9 for park purposes.' , I
<br /> ,/
<br /> i
<br /> i CounciLman Williams noted that although it was agreed the land under Jiscussi~ 'I
<br /> j: should be in public ownership there was no satisfaction that it was worth $190,000
<br /> ~~_c:t~~ pu])lic~_ There wa,s, somE! risk that development ..on that property wouldrest:r;ict'
<br /> 'the view of the Butte from certain portions of the community, but he' was nCiE,"pre;;;; ".
<br /> ;pared to make a motion to buy it for that amount of money.
<br /> .Councilman- Wood was interested in having an evaluation of priorities tD~determine
<br /> acquisition of this property as opposed to acquisition of properties 'in other areas.
<br /> ,Councilman McDonald thought the staff should further pursue the question of zoning
<br /> :applicable to the area with the idea the price might be altered on that' basis. He
<br /> 'said the zoning on the portion west of High Street definitely was not for industrial i
<br /> 'uses so staff should see whether the price was quoted on that basis. I
<br /> Manager noted the possibility that at some .future time the property might be needed 1
<br /> 'for some type of transportation facility as well as park use, keeping in mind that
<br /> fat one time "this right-of-way was designated for_ a cpnnector between 3rd and 4th r
<br /> I . _ ~ _... .-,._.r-- __
<br /> iAvenues. He said what really was needed' wa-s '-some directl.n on whether to ask for ,.
<br /> "
<br /> iSouthern Pacific dedication of the 3rd Avenue easement recognizing it would require 11 .
<br /> ia ten-year limitation on assessments for improvements. He said it was clear that i
<br /> I"
<br /> !if the city did not get the dedication the private owner would pursue adverse posses-
<br /> :sion through the courts to get access to adjacent property. However, there was some
<br /> , '
<br /> 'question whether that type of access would permit sewers and other utilities or if
<br /> \adverse possession would provide only for transportation.
<br /> IIn- answer to Councilman Williams, Manager explained that the property owner had ,
<br /> :'
<br /> Eiled suit to gain access to the property based on historical use of the right-of- .l
<br /> ,way for access, that the city was not in any way involved in that suit. It was his ,i(
<br /> iUnderstanding, he said, that there was very little question the courts would award !)
<br /> :access rights to that property but whether that would also provide right for sewer
<br /> service to the property was not known. City's acceptance of dedication from SP (
<br /> would clearly be for all public purposes, including facilities. The historical I
<br /> j
<br /> ;
<br /> reason for resisting dedication, manager said, was because access to the private i
<br /> ipropert~~~~ould permit development and hinder acquisition for public purposes. I
<br /> ; -"-- -.J ~.~-~ I
<br /> I --- ,
<br /> IIn response to Councilman McDonald, Manager said unless the city wanted sewers it ,
<br /> !would not be forced to provide them if it gained ownership of the property, that
<br /> the Council had the right to accept or deny petitions for improvements. Conim
<br /> 9/18/74
<br /> \NO action was forthcoming and Mayor Anderson suggested discussion be continued toFile :.
<br /> Isome .future time. -
<br /> .. ..... ....-- "'--. -., --..." . .... .....:.. ..,-~.-. I
<br /> N. ,~~'~munitY/Sch;ol'-"Advisoi:ycomm:i..tt~e -' COlmcil 'was asked to consid~r represent:~~~~1
<br /> , :on the Advisory Committee for the community/school program. Meet~ngs were anh~c~ )Comm
<br /> \ .pated once or twice a month in the organizational stages, perhaps qu~r~erl; t erge;18/74
<br /> after the first meeting scheduled for Wednesday, October 9, 1974, 1.3 p.. I File
<br /> , ,
<br /> Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to approve, affirm, and file
<br /> as noted Items A through N. Rollcall vote. All Council members p~esent
<br /> voting aye, 'motion carried.
<br /> III - Liquor License
<br /> 1. Ford's Restaurant, 1769 Franklin Boulevard - Change of Ownership (R) Re,st,aurant -
<br /> Thomas C. and Jonna L. Young , ,
<br /> I . .. .... .
<br /> 2. Eugene Hotel, 222 East Broadway - Change of Ownership lOA) Dispensers -
<br /> Michael and Violet Allen
<br /> Staff had no obj~ctions.
<br /> Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to recommend approval of the e
<br /> applications. Motion carried unanimously.
<br /> .
<br /> 9/23/74 - 6
<br /> '34'
<br />
|