12/08/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

He didn't want to start "buying the whole of downtown at 40% of what it would cost to put up new buildings." Ms. Cushman said the value of $65,470 was placed on the building in 1970 and that the property had not been reappraised since then. e Councilman Haws asked if the staff was recommending against an independent appraisal, did they think it unwise or unneeded at this time. Manager answered that it would mean an additional cost to the city. The city was not actually purchasing the property, he said, although it is subsidizing the purchase. He noted the consider- able amount of study given to facilitating acquisition of the property and said he thought it should go ahead. In further response to Mr. Haws, Manager estimated an independent appraisal would cost the city about $1,000. After discussion of other items, Councilman Bradley brought the subject back with a motion, second by Mr. Hamel, to rescind action taken in committee on December 3, and not allocate $60,000 toward purchase of the Palace Hotel. In making the motion, Mr. Bradley said he was not opposed to use of the Palace Hotel or any other structure for elderly people or any other group. His concern was with this particular proposal, and he said he would rather see it defeated and brought back at a later time in a different form after there was more investigation. Mr.Haws said he would also like to see more investigation, that he would not like to see the issue dropped. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion defeated - Council members Bradley, Harne 1 , and Haws voting aye; Council members Murray, Kell er, Beal, and Shirey voting no; Councilman Williams abstaining. - F. Council Minutes - August 25, 1975 as circulated Approve G. West University Neighborhood Letter Regarding Zoning - Mr. Murray referred to an October 6 letter from the West University Neighborhood stating the zoning in that area is leading to that neighborhood's demise and destruction. He wondered if staff had responded to it. Planning Director explained that copies of the letter had been sent to the Planning Commission but that, to date, the issue had not been scheduled on a Planning Commission agenda. The problem has constantly been a concern of that neighborhood. Attempts were made to alleviate some of those zoning concerns several years ago, and the matter was tabled at that point after some commercial uses, particularly clinics, were eliminated. Mr. Porter felt an appropriate staff response to the neighborhood group would be that the area falls within the community development refinement studies but is not scheduled to be addressed for approximately three years. If that priority were to change, he said, it would need to be considered by the Community Development Commission and also the Planning Commission. Mr. Murray requests that a response be directed to the neighborhood organization advising them the city is aware of the problem and has scheduled the workload to include treatment of their concern. Mrs. Beal didn't think the time frame was appropriate. She said the area in question is one where citizens are tremendously conscious and they should re- ceive higher priority due to the "mess and student ghetto" conditions existing there. She added that the matter should be put on the next committee agenda e with notification sent to the University neighborhood group. Mayor Anderson suggested that more time be allowed for notification of interested parties. Perhaps after Mrs. Beal' return in January would be an appropriate time. Mr. Murray asked that Mrs. Beal also identify what projects in that area she would not want addressed. 1c4<D 12/8/75 - 15