Laserfiche WebLink
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
<br />6. C.B.986 - Levying assessments for paving alley between Pearl Street and High Street <br />, from 4th Avenue to alley between 3rd Avenue and 4th Avenue (75-2') <br />lio written protests or requests to be heard were received. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. <br /> <br />7.C.B.987 - Levying assessments for paving alley between Oak Street and Pearl Street <br />from 14th Avenue to east/west alley; and between 14th Avenue and 15th <br />Avenue from Oak Street to north/south alley (75-22) <br />There were no written protests other than a request to be heard received from <br />Isalene Crow, 295 Sunnyside Drive, owner of property at 1430 Pearl Street. <br /> <br />Bert Teit:el, city engineer, explained that the improvement was petitioned by prop- <br />,erty owners who would pay 51% of the cost of the improvement (based on weighted <br />formula; 50% front footage). <br /> <br />Hs. Crow presented panel members with pictures showing the improvement and said it <br />~as of no benefit to her property, that it was solely for the benefit of property <br />~n the <?u~drant bou~ded by Oak, 14th, and the alley paving. ,She said only one person <br />had pet~t~oned the ~mprovement. /1r. Teitzel explained that the project: had been <br />petitioned by one property owner. However, before the petition was brought to the <br />Council a poll had been taken of other affected property owners. There had been <br />no further response in favor of the paving as a resul t of that poll. SOale had <br />responded negatively, and there had been no response from others. The petition had <br />been presented to the Council, he said, as 51~ petition in favor of the project <br />with calculations based on the recently adopted assessment formula. ' <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Max Liebreich, 2483 Mission Stree't, representing Archie Weinstein, owner of property <br />abutting the alley, and Ms. Crow, said that because the project was initiated at <br />the request of one property owner, other property owners involved had no choice in <br />the matter ~ <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Discussion brought out that Hs. Crow's property had recently been sold under con- <br />tract stipulating a sale price which di~ not include the assessment cost. Also, <br />that all of the properties involved were zoned C-2 although some of them were being <br />used for residential purposes. Further discussion touched on ownership in the area, <br />access to Hs. Crow's property, potential future use of the C-2 zoned land. <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />Hr. Liebreich thought notices of the project were inadequate, as did Hs. Crow who <br />said she had received no notice other than that advising that the contract had been <br />awarded. Hr. Teitzel explained that notices of public hearing at time of contract <br />award were sent to all affected property owners, including Ms. Crow, but that <br />notices never were sent after the award. Hr. Liebreich noted that because the assess- <br />ments were not of record, property sellers woul.d be liable for the assessment cost. <br /> <br />Councilman Williams wondered whether owners of property now being used for residential <br />purposes would support a panel recommendad.on should the Council be approached wi th <br />the idea of rezoning the commercial properties to residential district with the idea <br />that the assessment then would be based on residential zoning. 'Hs. Crow said she had <br />protested the commercial zoning when it was changed from residential ,some years back. <br />Hr. Liebreich said his client probably wou1d support the change if the other property <br />owners also supported it. He said there w.1s no intent at this time to use the property <br />for other than residential purposes. Hr. :!Jradley pointed out that the property could <br />be sold and the new owner could develop it commercially. <br /> <br />Councilman Bradley wondered if the assessment could be deferred until the property <br />was developed to commercial use. Hr. Teizel answered that the only basis for defer- <br />ment was if the property was an owner-occupied single-family residence. The proper- <br />ties are now rentals. Some question arose as to whether occupancy by a son of the <br />property owner would constitutelOowner occupied." <br /> <br />Mr. Williams pointed out that the question was whether the properties were properly <br />assessed as C-2. He felt they were and noted the many, many other properties in <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />1/12/76 - 10 <br /> <br />/2 <br />