05/30/1979 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Res. No. 3164--Authorizing street paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer construction in and adjacent to Harriet Park Subdivision (1509) was read by number and title. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously (Miller and Obie not present for vote). III. ~EVIEW OF PERMIT PROCESS FOR HISTORIC USES ZONE (Memo distributed) - Manager noted the receipt by the Council of a letter dated May 30, to Mr. Douglas Bayern, Attorney at Law, Northwest Legal Advocates from Mr. John L. Franklin, the City Attorney's staff, regarding the City practice in this matter. In January 1978, Unthank Seder Poticha made application to the City for the construction of four condominium units located in the 100 block of High Street. Two lots were vacant and two lots required demolition of existing structures. On April 11, the City Council designated this area an historic landmark. A building permit authorizing demolition of existing structures and construction of the condominium unit was issued on or about May 1, 1979. The issue is whether the restrictions and procedures contained in the East Skinner Butte Historic Ordinance are to be applied to the USP development. The City is not going to require that USP comply with the Historic Landmark Ordinance of this date because of the long-standing City policy in reviewing valid building permit applications that have been filed prior to a change in zoning or building regulations under the terms of the law existing at the time the valid applications were filed. If this policy ~ were changed it would have to be a Council action. .., Mr. Long felt it was necessary for the City to be consistent. In the past the City Code and zoning were honored as of the day of filing a complete application. The Attorneys on the other side of the question point out that the City could have a different policy if it wants to. The City has a legal right to enforce a different policy. As a staff, however, they could not deal differently with this application. If there is to be a change, it should be done with regard to everyone at once and with the proper announcement. Mr. Long said the Council could direct the staff to take some other course of action. Ms. Schue left the meeting. Councilors Haws, Smith, Obie, Lieuallen, Hamel, and Miller did not feel in this instance they could change the long-standing, evenly applied policy of the City for this one-time instance, nor did they wish to discuss the merits of changing that policy. IV. ORDINANCE REVISION RE: NOTICE OF HEARING OF APPEALS TO COUNCIL (Ordinance distributed) Manager noted this was a housekeeping ordinance revision concerning hearings panel process. The Attorney's office informed the City it was necessary to insert the additional wording. The problem arose out of court cases on the appeals of the Zoning Board decisions to the assess- ~ ment panel stating not adequate notice was given. This measure defines notice procedures. 312. 5/30/79--6