10/10/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The council bill will be referred back to a joint session of the e Planning Commission-City Council for further review. Mr. Haws said there were several parcels that he was concerned about and wondered if this was the time to consider those. Mayor Keller said those concerns could be brought before the joint meeting of the Planning Commission and Council. Mr. Saul told Council that everyone who testified at previous hearings would be notified of the joint meeting. Mr. Obie called for a point of order, saying his motion was to delete two parcels from the main motion. He thought if the main motion passed, then only that amended, portion would go back to the Planning Commission. City Attorney said that would be a reasonable interpreta- tion, but it was not the interpretation historically utilized by Council. He said Council had consistently followed the procedure that any action taken contrary to the Planning Commission's recommendation would result in the matter being sent back for joint session with the Planning Commission and Council. He noted if Council was uncomfort- able with that interpretation, then it should consider a change, noting City Attorney's office had recommended in the past that this procedure might possibly be considered for change by Council. Mr. Lieuallen expressed disappointment in the whole process. He felt Council had made this part of town a football, noting that property owners can never do exactly as they please as there are many restrictions on behavior. e 1-B-7 B. Hearings Panel Report October 3, 1977 for Levying Assessments-- Minutes distributed Manager said council bills 1538, 1546, and 1547 had been recommended by Hearings Panel to levy assessments as proposed. However, council bill 1537 was subject to discussion because of a right-of-way question which could affect the amount of assessment. Stan Long, City Attorney's Office, said with respect to council bill 1537, Council was dealing with an assessme~t on Barger Drive which amounted to a small amount of money, but involved a significant principal for the City. He said the minutes of the Panel Hearing suggest that the City is mixing right-of- way with assessments for special benefits upon a public construction. The point to be made, \Jhethcr right or wrof1q" is Barger is [! SO-foot wide ~treet 3nd ~houlJ be assessed on that basis. There ar~ two cases pending now, and there has hCC'fl 'some su~~estion that the City might nczotiate or seck to acquire right-of-way in~he future. It is the City's position now that the City owns the right-of-way, that 50 feet, and it would be consistent and appropriate for the Council to take the position that Barger Drive is 50 feet wide and not 40 feet wide. He said Council could send the report back to the Assessment Panel or it simply could accept the report and with respect to the Barger Drive assessment, levy the assessments as originally recommended by staff. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to accept Hearings Panel ,. report of October 3, 1977, with respect to council bills 1538, 1546, and 1547; and with respect to council bill 1537 to levy assessments as originally recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. lloS 10/10/77--10