04/28/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

on the pedestrian/bike path and paved parking area including expansion of contract to include additional paved area at the Amazon Park softball field for a total contract price of $24,206.90 for that project. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. - Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to award contracts as recommended. Rollcall. vote. All council-.members present voting aye, motion carried. II - Assessments Ordinances Hearing panel Report - April 7, 1975 - Copies of the report were. previously dis- tributed to Council members as well as copies of a summary of the issues raised by the Panel, staff's position, and copy of Resolution 2272 covering assessment procedure as it relates to standard street widths. Letter .from Jack. Mattison, attorney for Georgia.pacific, was distributed to Council members setting out code provisions on Which he based his opinion that Georgia Pacific proper1;y on "est 1st Avenue was not benefitted by the sewer construction there. Letter from Gary Spi vak, president of the "hi teaker Conmuni ty Council, was noted supporting the stand for a change in policy which would assess street as well as alley improve- .ments on the basis of use of abutting property regardless of zoning. Assistant Manager suggested. proceeding with the assessments under consideration, then crea- tion of a Council subcommittee to consider change in policl} if that was desired. Councilman Hamel explained that because he and Councilman Bradley disagreed on a number of recommendations they decided the issues should be heard by the entire Council. (1660) At Councilman Williams' request it was understood a single document would be pre- pared listing staff comments on each issue with those issues as they appeared in the panel report. Councilma~ Murray. recognized zoning was a separate issue, but he thought one way of handling the Polk Street assessment would be to consider reducing the assess- ment on those properties which would seek rezoning from R-2 to R-l. Councilwoman Beal thought it more appropriate for the Planning Commission to make recommenda- tions on that entire area, r~cognizing the mixed/spot zoning there, before any- thing was done about the assessments. Assistant Manager encouraged proceeding with the assessments but with the understanding that if rezoning was accomplished within a year, credit would be given to anyone who paid more than what the policy required. The money to pick up the difference in that case would come from capital projects funds rather than the cost being spread to other property owners. Councilman Haws wondered what would stop a property owner from rezoning to R-l, pay the lesser assessment, then rezone for more density. It was agreed there was nothing cOuld be done to prevent that. However, Mr. Williams thought the cost of applying for rezoning would at least equal the differential in the assessment. Councilman Murray thought the required "proof of need" for rezoning would make future Councils aware of any previous rezoning. . - Councilman Haws thought if rezoning was to be requested to gain the lower assess- ment it would have to be done within a certain period of time or the higher amount paid. Assistant. Manager cautioned about the "bookkeeping nightmare" and thought the simpler solution would be to separate the zoning issue from assessment. If R-l zone was considered proper for that area, the commitment could be made that if it was changed to R-l within a year then there would be an adjustmnet in the assessment. Councilman Bradley said he based his panel recommendation on the language in Resolution 2272. He thought there was inconsistency between different sections of the resolution. There followed discussion on various interpretations of the language and staff's explanation of its understanding of intent of the resolution as it applied to assessment for residential streets. - Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr~ Hamel to proceed with the reguiar proc,ess in levying the assessments as proposed, ~taff .to prepare a packet combining staff comments and panel recommenations as re- quested. Motion carried unanimously. COM 4/23/75 Pub Hrng 4/28/75 - 10 ..,IS