04/28/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Assistant Manager explained that the major issue of assessment in relationship to zoning of properties involved a departure from staff understanding of the meaning and intent of Council Resolution 2272. He reviewed the provisions of that resolu- tion - assessment on 28-foot width abutting parcels zoned R-I, RA, or AG single- family dwellings. Assessment for improvements abutting properties otherwise zoned __ would be based on a 36-foot width. Hearing panel recommended that all properties on Polk Street - R-2 zoned properties - be assessed on the basis of 28-foot width. Staff recommendation was to assess R-2 properties on the 36-foot width, but allow reduction of that assessment to a 28-foot width basis if R-2 property was rezoned to R-I, RA, or AG during the remainder of this calendar year. Assistant Manager said that owners of R-2 properties could then take advantage of that reduction in assessment by filing application for rezoning on merits of the property involved rather than confuse the question of assessment procedure. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved and given final passage. Mrs. Jessie Waldstein, 1270 East 22ndAvenue, said she understood the Whiteaker Neighborhood Association had made a recommendation with regard to this assessment but it had not yet been presented even though public testimony was to be taken at this time if new material was to be presented. Councilman Bradley said he thought provisions in Resolution 2272 were ambiguous (see committee minutes of April 9, 1975). He thought the provision should be written into the bill and not left to individual staff discretion. Rollcall vote was taken on the motion to approve and pass the bilL All Council members present voting aye, except Councilman Bradley voting no, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17319. e. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the properties so assessed be invited to seek rezoning within the current calendar year, and if appropriate downward rezoning occurs within .the current calendar year then appropriate adjustment to the assessment would be made. Councilman Bradley suggested reconsideration of assessment after the property was re- zoned. He felt the proposed method of encouraging rezoning built in some coercion. Councilman Murray thought it would be inappropriate to reconsider assessment after re- zoning which would require public hearings' and demonstration. of public need. Council- man Haws wondered what would stop people from having property "down zoned" until ad- justment in the assessment was made then getting rezoning back to the higher density again. Assistant Manager reviewed~ the concept entailed in the assessment policy which took into account abutting land uses. He thought Council action in granting down- zoning would assume that it wo~ld be a long-term use and that it would take into account the overall best interests of the community. With that decision made, he said, unless circumstances changed dramatically, it should withstand further change at a later date. Vote was taken on the motion a.s stated; .lMotion"carried, all Council members present voting aye, except Councilma~ Bradley voting no. Coun~il Bill No. 770 - Levying assessments for paving and storm sewer on Golden (1916) Garden Street from Barger Drive to Jessen Drive (74-14) - read the first time on March 24 and referred to April hearing panel, and held over from the April 14 Council meeting for consideration at this meeting - was ~ read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no Council .., member present requesting that it be read in full. Assistant M~nager explained that the hearing panel was divided on the question or whe- ther properties of single-family use should be assessed on a 28- or 36-foot width. Staff 4/28/75 - 12 2.. 'I