04/14/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Counci lmari BradLey asked wha t remedy Ms. ,~arfinson wou ld have if the recom- memlation was to levy the assessment as proposed, Mr, Tei tze,l saicJ if the assessment was levied it would become a lien on the propert11, thC'il lega,l acti on as;ainst the e,j ty for clamiJges would be ahou t t)w onll) . recourse, Ms, MiJrtinson said she thought she could ask for a writ of rcvic1\'. . Recommendation: 'Inanimo"s, to levy the assessment as proposeQ on the lJiJsis that the Martinson property amounted tn only 27% of the total properties fronting on the street and there were no o1>jections from other owners of abutting pr:operties. Also, the street right-of-way had been ded,icated in l.ine with Planning Commission requirement for the P/JD, and even though it would not be developed 1vi thi n the foresee- able futu,re there lvas, reason. to beLieve that w'as the appropriate action to maintaIn liiiJble pjanning for the area. In making the recommendation, Mr. Bradley thought the full Council might give serious thought to deferring the difference in the assess- ment for the 36-foot and 28-foot widths on the portion abutting un- developed profiert~J until the property was developed, '2. C, B. 769 - Paving 1!0.Ik S~reet from Railroad ~ouZcviJrd to nort(l of Polk Court (73-2l) Those obj.ecting to 'the assessmen t were Mrs. Jessie Ivalclst:ein, 1270 East 22nd Avenue i Edlvard Kaiscrshot, s[.>cakinq for Lydia Trulson, 35 North Polk i /?ichard , Price, 25 Neptune, Springfi eld i Elmer Hanson, l68 North Cleveland i Wayne Whitehead, 93 North Polk. Mrs. Waldstein 'asked the panel to consider assessing for only the 28-foot width on portions abutting residcntial properties (l?-2). She recognized the '. city was paying for extra strcngth to accommodate heavy truck traffic, but she fel t the R-2 zoned property stil] in sin(;lc-famill} use should [lal} for on,Zl} the 28-foot width. Sh(~ refern-,d torecc'nt clwnqc in alley ilssessment procedure ~vllC[ejn dsscs,<:mcnt.: WdS hL<;,'d on lillld use and asked thai, the panel consider the occupants of single-fam,i.l'y dwellings remaining on R-2 zoned land. Mr. 'l'eitzel expla,ined that the Counci.l at time of bid a~vard on this project decided on paving to 36-,foot width becallse of the R-2 zoning in the area. He said the policy on method of assessing for street paving did not provide for deferment because of property uses, it is based strictly on zoning. lie said the alley assessment procedure re~erred to by Mrs. Waldstein did allow defer- ment for a portion of the improvement cost of owner-occupied single-family use 'on land zoned to d higher. densi ty. Similar deferment was not provided for in street impro.vements, he said, because of the insignificant difference between the 36- and 28-foot widths and the feeling that zoning rather tha.n use should be the biJsis. . Mrs. Waldstein called attention to city n.eed for the street because of its trucks. Also, that at the time of neighborhood po.Zl on. whether thQ improve- ment'shouliJ he constcl1cted there wa.s no option with rcgard to width. lIer main concern remained that the ]?-l uses be assessed on a different lJasis than the mul tiple'-famil y uses because of ,considerable difference in traffic genera ted by the multiple-family uses. In response to Councilman Brad.Iey, it was brought out that Mrs. rvaldstein's property was zoned R-2 near RA zon.ing, and that the majority of the property in that area was zoned for multiple-family use though much of it lias st,i1l in s,ingle-family use. Mr. Tei.tzel siJid there were six RA zoned properties against which assessment would be deferred (36-foot versus 28-footlvidth) . However, in accordance wi th assessment policy Mrs. Waldstein' s property would be assessed the 36-foot width since it was zoned R-2. e 4/14/75 - 32 \84-' "