HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/13/1978 Meeting
-
M I NUT E S
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
March 13, 1978
Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to
order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller at 7:30 p.m. on March 13, 1978, in the
Council Chamber, with the following Councilors present: D. W. Hamel, Ray
Bradley, Eric Haws, Jack Delay, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, and Betty Smith.
Councilor Tom Williams was absent.
I. Public Hearings
A.Amendments to Tree Cutting Ordinance
Proposed amendment distributed to Council. Manager said this was
basically the ordinance which Council had adopted at its February 22
meeting, with the refinement of those amendments which include
prohibition of cutting on less than a 20,000 square-foot lot unless a
building permit is issued, no more than five trees per year from a
lot of 20,000 or more square feet, with a tree defined as a 25-inch
instead of 36-inch circumference.
e
Kay Holbo, 2090 Broadview, Chairperson, Tree Preservation Committee,
reviewed for Council the process it had gone through in recognizing
the need to preserve the trees in Eugene, especially in the South
Hills area. She explained the major .changes in the amendments to
Council. No tree can be cut in Eugene without a permit except: 1) on
lots or parcels less than 20,000 square feet on which a building
exists or a building permit has been applied for, in which case the
individual property owner may cut as many trees as he wishes; 2} on
street rights-of-way or public utility easements during the installa-
tion of improvements such as sewers and streets; 3} only five trees
per year may be removed on lots or parcels over 20,000 square feet.
The City will monitor cutting of trees through the Building Department
and it would be hoped the amendments would prevent unrestricted
tree cutting in the City.
-
Stan Long, City Attorney, said the ordinance presented to the Council
for this evening's meeting represented the entire tree cutting ordi-
nance in a complete comprehensive package. The ordinance addresses
occupied parcels of land (one that has a dwelling or a building permit
for a dwelling); Tree Appeal Board; the size of tree has been reduced;
same procedure for obtaining a permit; same criteria under which a
permit is to be issued; and the appeal section is the same. He
noted the exceptions which were changed somewhat included two pro-
hibitions: 1} an emergency situation; and 2} an occupied parcel
of private property consisting of less than 20,000 square feet do
not need a permit for felling trees. There was a slight rewording
in Section 6.330(g} in that any felling necessary to install or
maintain improvements such as streets and sewers within publicly-owned
rights-of-way or utility easements are not subject to the restrictions
of the other sections in the Code. Also, an exception has been made
in that a permit is not needed for cutting trees in the. final approval
for a PUD.
3/13/78--1
155
Mr. Haws wondered how the exceptions work and who would determine
whether or not they were applicable. Mr. Long said an individual
would cut a tree at his own risk, and if he were to make an error
in judgment he would do so at his own peril. Mr. Long said the
Parks Department and the Building Department probably would be
receiving many requests asking for advice before trees were removed.
He also noted private citizens usually do not cut on rights-of-way,
but the City and EWEB would be responsible for clearing trees in
those areas.
-
Mr. Bradley wondered if there were anything in the Code to prevent the
following situations: a developer who owned 50 acres and subdivided
it into 100 parcels with 20,000 square feet or less from applying for
building permits and clear cutting the area. Mr. Long said there was
nothing to prevent such a situation, but the practical economic
constraints of a person obtaining that many permits and the fact
that the lots would be worth less with no trees would probably curtail
such activity.
Public hearing was opened.
Those speaking in favor of the tree cutting amendment were as follows:
. Jerry Jaqua, 2490 West 21st Avenue, Hawkins Highlands Neighborhood
Organization, referred to the Zellner tree cutting in the South Hills.
He felt the proposed tree ordinance would tighten the restriction and
will eliminate further wholesale cutting.
Jim Johnston, 179 West 37th, Crest Drive Neighborhood Association, 4IIt
expressed that Association's concern about the saving of trees
especially in the South Hills area. He referred to the Zellner
cutting of trees in that area and said it was his understanding
that Mr. Zellner was going to cut 60 more trees recently. Additional
cutting of trees is contrary to the Cityls planning and at odds with
the proposed ordinance. He urged Council to adopt the proposed
ordinance to prevent further deterioration of the valuable resource in
the City.
Those speaking against the tree cutting ordinance were as follows:
Robert Horne, 2333 West 29th, who cited the recent ice storms and
the danger of trees falling on his house. He questioned who would
be liable if in a strong wind storm or a subsequent ice storm a
tree were to fall across his house. He was also concerned about the
safety regarding cutting of dangerous trees. He noted he was a
member of the Lane County Safety Commission and asked, again, who
would be liable for the trees falling on other people's property.
George Zellner, 92456 Coburg Road, addressed the question of dangerous
trees. He noted if houses were built under or next to large trees
and strong winds were to occur, there could be a danger involved to
the houses located in such an area. He refuted the statements that he
had clear cut in the Panorama Subdivision area. He said all small
-
3/13/78--2
'5~
Ii
--
trees 12 inches and under are still standing and he has never had the
intention of cutting smaller trees. He also said if a person were
to look at the Third Addition of Panorama, it. would be very difficult
to see where the trees had been cut. Regarding the statement he was
going to cut 60 trees, he said he had plans to cut only 21 trees which
was what the law permitted. He had also notified all involved of his
plans to cut those trees and had complied legally. Regarding fir
trees, he noted it was impossible to top them as sucker limbs would
grow and create a danger in that strong winds would possibly cause
them to fall through roofs of houses. He noted in December 1977
during the heavy winds and ice, there were many instances, not only in
Eugene but in the Beaverton area, where trees fell through houses. He
cited a feeling of responsibility to those persons who live in the
Panorama area to protect them from trees falling on their houses. He
said he would demand the City pay a bill if he were to be sued because
of trees falling if he were not allowed to remove the ones he considered
to be dangerous. Also, he noted that some people buy a lot from him
but do not build for several years. He questioned what will happen to
those dangerous trees on that lot that might endanger the houses in
the adjoining lots before a building permit is obtained so that trees
could be cut. He felt his subdivision in the Panorama area was one in
which plans were made ahead to clear out the dangerous trees and to
save the hardwood trees. He felt he had done a very good job in
clearing the trees without leaving scars and had been very careful to
locate the roads parallel to the hills so that there would be no
erosion. He noted this most recent instance of cutting 21 trees would
be more costly to him than any profit he might accrue.
e
Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony
presented.
In response to the question of liability, manager said it was his
assumption that the liability would be that of the property owner
where.the tree is located. In the instance of dangerous trees in
the streets, that would be the City's liability. Regarding dangerous
trees, there was a provision in the ordinance for removing same
if there is an appeal made to the Tree Appeal Board. Thus, it would
be possible to take care of dangerous tree situations.
,
Torn Slocum, 2125 Fairmount Boulevard, member of the Tree Preservation
Committee, questioned what would happen if a permit was requested,
denied, and the person went ahead and cut the trees.
City Attorney replied he could not see a case where a permit would be
denied if a dangerous tree were involved. He said it is a discre-
tionary decision to be made by the City, and the City would not be
liable; however, he doubted such a situation would occur.
-
3/13/78--3
\51
Regarding liability, City Attorney said the general rule about cases
involving tree cutting is that generally there is no liability because
the owner has to know the tree is dangerous and refuses to do anything
about it. It is difficult to determine that the owner does know a ~
tree is dangerous. Suing public bodies for failing to cut trees has
generally been unsuccessful. However, he said it was theoretically
possible. With respect to street trees, he said the City is usually
responsible and does take care of those dangerous tree situations.
However, he noted again that it was at the discretion of the City
whether or not the tree was dangerous and whether or not it should be
cut.
C.B. 1621--Concerning tree preservation; amending Sections 6.300, 6.305,
6.310, 6.315, 6.320, 6.325, and 6.330 of Code 1971; and declar-
ing an emergency was read by council bill number and title,
there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in
fu 11 .
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be read
the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous
consent of the Council and that enactment be considered at this
ti me.
Mr. Obie said in response to Mr. Zellner's concern about felling of
dangerous trees, the ordinance covers that. .
Mr. Bradley expressed a concern in that the ordinance does not permit
massive removal of trees as he illustrated earlier. He felt it was
a balancing question of preservation of trees in the South Hills as ~
opposed to increasing housing supply in Eugene. He wondered if the ...
ordinance could be amended or changed to prevent full-scale removal
of trees on occupied lots less than 20,000 feet.
Mr. Lieuallen had some concern with the ordinance if it applied only
to the diameter, thus being aimed only at Douglas firs as they are
measured in a different way than others. He wished the ordinance
were tighter, but felt it was a stop-gap measure and perhaps a more
comprehensive approach could be reached later.
Ed Smith, Parks Director, said the ordinance was not aimed at one
specific tree, but at all trees. They are measured at 4-1/2 feet
above the ground, the standard way to determine diameter on any tree.
He said that requirement of diameter would apply to all species of
of trees including maple, alder, and oak.
Ms. Smith asked a member of the Tree Preservation Committee to explain
how it arrived at the 20,000 square feet figure. Kay Holbo said
it was a process of compromise. Mr. Slocum clarified if a person
has a one-half acre lot, he could not clear cut, but could cut only
five trees until he had applied for a building permit; at that time he
3/13/78--4
e
(58
e
could cut as many trees as he wished. The ordinance provides that an
owner of an improved lot could cut all trees down in order to plant
lawn or do as he wished with his property. He said the Committee had
attempted to minimize the work of the Parks Department having to look
at every single tree-cutting situation. Also, the ordinance amend-
ments would give the individual property owner the right to do as he
wishes with his property, and the ordinance would prevent indiscrimi-
nate tree cutting. The principal problem was cutting a large number
of trees within a subdivsion. He felt the ordinance was adequate and
Mr. Bradley's concern was something that probably would not happen.
Ray Wiley, 2100 Shields, member of the Tree Preservation Committee,
noted that a 20,000 square foot lot was a large lot for the City of
Eugene, there being very few that size in subdivisions. He said if an
individual owner had a acreage or a 20,000 square-foot lot, he could
cut five trees per year. The Committee originally wanted the building
permit application to be the key for cutting trees. He noted. the time
between the application for a permit and actual starting of construc-
tion would allow a developer to clear a building site without a
building permit and thus allow him to complete the house three to four
days earlier. Before a person applied for a building permit, a set of
plans with a site plan must be submitted. The individual then
applies for the permit and pays the permit fee. He said in regard to
Mr. Bradley's hypothetical situation, it was highly unlikely that a
person would apply for 100 permits as it would be too expensive.
In response to another question from Mr. Bradley, Mr. Wiley said most
builders and developers build a house one at a time. However, he
noted two situations in which there was a builder/developer or just a
developer. The developer sells the lots to the builder. The builder-
developer might take out a permit for two to three houses at one time,
and he noted most of the houses in the South Hills area are pre-sold
situations.
-
Mr. Delay reminded the Council that it was dealing with an ordinance
specifically addressing a particular kind of problem. The intent
of the ordinance is to try to move how the vegetation is to be
dealt with to people who will be living on the property. He thought
the ordinance addressed that very issue.
Mr. Bradley was still concerned about his hypothetical situation
in that there was no protection to prevent someone from clear-cutting
in those areas. He felt the ordinance was placing a higher priority
on certain parts of the city, in this instance on the hillsides.
He also felt it was restricting what a person would do with his own
property. He noted for the record that he was totally opposed to the
provision dealing with 20,000 square-foot lot size. He felt the
ordinance was not doing what it should be doing if Council wanted to
place a high value on tree preservation as opposed to what a person
can do with his own property.
.
3/13/78--5
15~
Vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously and
the bill was read the second time by council bill number only.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be ~
approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors .
present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered
18123.
B. Amendments to Taxi Deregulation Ordinance
Amendmends distributed to Council.
Manager said the major aspect of the amendments would be to deregulate
rates in that cabs will be able to have taxi meter or zone rate
charges. A 30-day notice requirement prior to changing rates is
included, with rates to be published in the newspaper prior to the
change. Rates are to be prominately displayed in printed type, with
the zone or taxi meter charge system indicated on the outside of the
cab. The dome light need not be on when the taxi is for hire; also
included were the tightening of regulations on the condition of the
vehicle. Manager said these were changes requested by Council when it
considered the ordinance at its February 22 meeting.
Public hearing was opened.
Alan Wagner, 4502 River Road, supported passage of the ordinance.
However, he had some questions he wished Council to consider and
delegate staff to answer. First, he wondered if the cabs operated
by any company had to be exactly the same color. Second, he wondered
what rates must be posted: Discounts and special services
or just rates for local transportation. Third, he wondered what
constitutes machine lettering and how that is to be placed on the
side of the car. He felt it would be better to have block
lettering. Fourth, he wondered what constitutes a major dent, noting
this would be a subjective decision made by law enforcement officers.
He was in favor of deregulation in rates and expressed hope that it
would not be a mistake that a minimum rate was not set. He felt
the City and the cab companies could work together to make the ordi-
nance work.
-
Johnnie Miller, 1141 Main; and James Perkins, 360 W. 1st Ave.,
both supported the ordinance.
Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony
presented.
Manager said as he understood the present ordinance, it required
merely an indication on the outside of the cab whether it is zoned or
metered. The rates themselves were to be on printed cards inside the
cab. Sherm Flogstad, Finance Director, said the ordinance required
indications as to whether or not it was a metered or zoned rate as
well as rates that could be observable from the outside of the cab.
3/13/78--6
.
f~
I:
-
City Manager noted the emergency clause had been eliminated, thus
allowing the taxicabs 30 days to comply.
C.B. 1609--Regarding taxicabs; amending Sections 3.005, 3.010, 3.353,
3.355, 3.360, 3.365, 3.375, 3.380, 3.385, 3.390, 3.405,
3.410, and 3.415 of Code 1971; repealing Sections 3.370
and 3.420; adding Sections 3.363, 3.380, 3.383, 3.391, and
3.392 was read by council bill number and title only, there
being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, that the bill be read
the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous
consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at
thi s time.
In regard to the block lettering versus machine lettering, Mr. Flogstad
said he felt they were identical. The intent was to eliminate hand
lettering.
Vote was taken on the motion, which passed unanimously and the
bill was read the second time by council bill number only.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, that the bill be
approved and given final passage.
e
Mr. Bradley said he would vote no because he did not believe in
deregulation of rates in this industry. Mr. Haws said he was glad
the City had taken this small step to deregulate rates in this
business.
Roll call vote was taken on the motion, which passed with
all Councilors voting aye except Mr. Bradley voting no. The
bill was declared passed and numbered 18124.
C. Code Amendment re: Placement of Facilities for Care of Alcoholics
Unanimously recommended by the Planning Commission February 7, 1978.
Manager said current zoning requires conditional use permits in
RP, R-4, and C-1 zones in which other group-care homes are outright
uses. The amendment would allow alcoholic care facilities to be in
the same category as other group-care facilities which remain condi-
tional uses in some zones. Jim Saul, planner, said the amendment
was initiated by the Planning Commission and in effect would be to
treat the facilities for alcoholics as a conditional use in RA, R-1,
R-2, R-3, RG, C-2, and C-3 zones; and would allow as an outright
use in R-4, RP, and C-1 zones. He said currently the classification
of facilities for the care and/or lodging of a1cholics is different
e
3/13/78--7
, ~I
from that placed on any other kind of group-care home in the city.
He said the Planning Commission received no testimony in opposition,
but considerable support for the amendment from many organizations ~
in the area. He noted the amendment had been referred to all neighbor- ,..,
hood organizations with only Churchill and Fairmount responding.
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
C.B. 1622--Concerning placement of facilities for the care and/or lodging
of alcoholics; amending Code 1971; deleting Section 9.492(3}
was read by council bill number and title only, there being no
Councilor present requesting it be read in full.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be read
the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous
consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at
th i s time.
Mr. Bradley felt it more wise to have conditional use of the alcoholic
group-care homes in commercial and retail areas. Mr. Saul said the
emphasis on locating them in C-1 or C-2 zones was misplaced because,
as a general rule, group-care facilities are not located within either
of those zone districts. He said the emphasis should be on the
question of whether facilities for alcoholics should be treated
differently than other group-care facilities are treated within the
ci ty .
Mr. Delay noted the testimony given before the Planning Commission
by Sarah Mahler, representing the West University Neighbors in which ~
it was felt by the neighborhood organization that group-care facili- ~
ties should be treated equally in all zones. He wondered why these
facilities should be outright uses in one zone and conditional uses
in others, and questioned whether or not they should simply be all
conditional uses in all zones or outright uses in all zones. He
referred to outright use in R-4 zones, and felt perhaps this zone
district was becoming "second class." Mr. Saul replied the Planning
Commission had considered those questions on four different occasions.
However, he felt that was a different subject than what was before the
Council this evening. He said the problem is that there are any
number of uses within an R-4 District, which for a variety of reasons
are permitted as outright uses and are either not permitted at all or
treated as conditional uses in other zone areas. He said by nature of
the. facilities, group-care homes were usually located near the down-
town area close to the services required by the clientele.
Mr. Delay said he wanted to alert Council that there are other kinds
of problems in various parts of the city as it looks to the future.
Vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously and the
bill was read the second time by council bill number only.
3/13/78--8
e
Ib1.
I
-
e
-
I
l...
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be
approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All councilors
present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered
18125.
II.
Ordinances for Second Reading
The following council bills, read the first time February 27, and referred
to Hearings Panel for hearing March 6, were brought back for second and
final reading, with Panel recommendation (attached) to levy assessments as
proposed:
C.B. 1611--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm
sewer within 11th Addition to Nob Hill (1260}(76-69) was
read by council bill number and title only, there being
no Councilor present requesting it be read in full.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be approved
and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present
voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18126.
1612--Levying assessments for paving 19th Avenue from 18th Avenue to
Sunrise Blvd. (1198}(77-02) was read by council bill number and
title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be
read in full.
C.B.
C.B.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be approved
and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present
voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18127.
1613--Levying assessments for paving and sanitary sewer, alley
between 2nd Avenue and 3rd Avenue from Blair Boulevard to Van
Buren Street (1294}(77-18) was read by council bill number and
title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be
read in full.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be approved
and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present
voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18128.
C.B. 1614--Levying assessments for sanitary sewer and storm sewer within
Somerset Hills III, within area bounded by Somerset Hills
Addition, Somerset Hills II and Somerset Hills III, and within
160 feet of boundaries of Somerset Hills III (1346)(77-19) was
read by council bill number and title only, there being no
Councilor present requesting it be read in full.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be approved
and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present
voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18129.
3/13/78--9
1f:,3
C.B. 1615--Levying assessments for paving Robin Avenue adjacent to
Tax Lot 17-04-22-21-00700(1362}(77-25} was read by council bill
number and title only, there being no Councilor present request-
ing it be read in full. ~
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be approved
and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present
voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18130.
C.B. 1616--Levying assessments for sanitary sewer to serve Cherry's .
Addition (77-26) was read by council bill number and title
only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in
fu 11 .
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be approved
and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present
voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18131.
C.B. 1617--Levying assessments for sanitary sewer to serve Tax Lot
18-03-16-30-02100 adjacent to Skyline Drive was read by council
bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present
requesting it be read in full.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be approved
and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present
voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18132.
C.B. 1618--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm
sewer within Ironwood Subdivision (1368}(77-45) was read by ...
council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor ~
present requesting it be read in full.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be approved
and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present
voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18133.
C.B. 1619--Levying assessments for sidewalk, east side Four Oaks Grange
Road between 18th Avenue and Bailey Hill Road was read by
council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor
present requesting it be read in full.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be approved
and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present
voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18134.
C.B. 1620--Levying assessments for River Road-Beltline Sanitary District
(526}(77-1003) was read by council bill number and title only,
there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be approved
and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present
voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18135.
3/13/78--10
-
Ib't
.
III. Ordinances for First Reading
C.B. 1623--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm
sewer within River Tree Subdivision and sanitary sewer within
160 feet of the east and west boundaries (1290}(76-68) was read by
council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor
present requesting it be read in full.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be
read the first time and referred to Hearings Panel for hearing
March 20, 1978, and Panel recommendation be brought back for
Council consideration March 27, 1978. Motion carried unanimously.
C.B. 1624--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm
sewer, and pedestrian way within Deodar Subdivision (1339)
(77-08) was read by council bill number and title only, there
being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be read
the first time and referred to Hearings Panel for hearing March 20,
1978, and Panel recommendation be brought back for Council
consideration March 27, 1978. Motion carried unanimously.
C.B.
1625--Levying assessments for paving and sidewalk on Elizabeth
Street from Royal Avenue to 300 feet south (1427}(77-11)
was read by council bill number and title only, there being no
Councilor present requesting it be read in full.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be
read the first time and referred to Hearings Panel for hearing
March 20, 1978, and Panel recommendation be brought back for
Council consideration March 27, 1978. Motion carried unanimously.
e
C.B.
1626--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewers, storm
sewers and pedestrian way within Third Addition to Meadowbrook
(1357}(77-12) was read by council bill number and title only,
there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be
read the first time and referred to Hearings Panel for hearing
March 20, 1978, and Panel recommendation be brought back for
Council consideration March 27, 1978. Motion carried unanimously.
C.B. 1627--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm
sewer within Kodiak Park Subdivision; and sanitary sewer
within 160 feet of the south boundary of Kodiak Park Sub-
division (1380}(77-15) was read by council bill number and
title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be
read in full.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be
read the first time and referred to Hearings Panel for hearing
March 20, 1978, and Panel recommendation be brought back for
~ Council consideration March 27, 1978. Motion carried unanimously.
3/13/78--11
IbS
C.B. 1628--Levying assessments for paving Holly Street from Tabor
Street to Norkenzie Road (1416}(77-37) was read by council bill
number and title only, there being no Councilor present request-
ing it be read in full. ~
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be
read the first time and referred to Hearings Panel for hearing
March 20, 1978, and Panel recommendation be brought back for
Council consideration March 27, 1978. Motion carried unanimously.
C.B. 1629--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm
sewer within Shiloh Subdivision; paving within Brewer Park
Subdivision, and sanitary sewer within 160 feet of the south
boundary of Shiloh Subdivision (1345}(77-51) was read by
council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor
present requesting it be read in full.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be
read the first time and referred to Hearings Panel for hearing
March 20, 1978, and Panel recommendation be brought back for
Council consideration March 27, 1978. Motion carried unanimously.
C.B. 1630--Levying assessments for sanitary sewer Foch Street from Roose-
velt Boulevard to 400 feet south (1439}(77-53) was read by
council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor
present requesting it be read in full.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be
read the first time and referred to Hearings Panel for hearing ~. .
March 20, 1978, and Panel recommendation be brought back for ~
Council consideration March 27, 1978. Motion carried unanimously.
IV. Resolution
Res. No. 2847--Authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress payments
for period of February 27 through March 13, 1978, was read
by number and title.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to adopt the resolution.
Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously.
V. Approval of Minutes
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to approve Council
minutes of February 27, 1978, roll call vote. Motion carried
unanimously.
Upon motion duly made, seconded and passed, the meeting was adjourned to
March 15, 1978.
~H~
Ci ty Manager
CTH:DT:jm/CM8b16 ~
3/13/78--12
I~"
ASSESSMENT PANEL HEARING
March 6, 1978
..~
A. C.B. 1611--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm
sewer within 11th Addition to Nob Hill (1260--76-69)
No written protests or requests to be heard were received.
B. C.B. 1612--Levying assessments for paving 19th Avenue from 18th Avenue
to Sunrise Boulevard
No written protests or requests to be heard were received.
C. C.B. 1613--Levying assessments for paving and sanitary sewer, alley
between 2nd Avenue and 3rd Avenue from Blair Boulevard to
Van Buren Street (1294--77-18)
No written protests or requests to be heard were received.
D. C.B. 1614--Levying assessments for sanitary sewer and storm sewer within
Somerset Hills III, within area bounded by Somerset Hills
Addition, Somerset Hills II and Somerset Hills III, and within
160 feet of boundaries of Somerset Hills III (1346--77-19)
E. C.B. 1615--Levying assessments for paving Robin Avenue adjacent to
Tax Lot 17-04-22-21-00700 (1362--77-25)
- No written protests or requests to be heard were received.
F. C.B. 1616--Levying assessments for sanitary sewer to serve Cherry's
Addition (1169--77-26)
No written protests or requests to be heard were received.
G. C.B. 1617--Levying assessments for sanitary sewer to serve Tax Lot
18-03-16-30-02100 adjacent to Skyline Drive (1474--77-32)
No written protests or requests to be heard were received.
H. C.B. 1618--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer
within Ironwood Subdivision (1368--77-45)
No written protests or requests to be heard were received.
I. C.B. 1619--Levying assessments for sidewalk, east side of Four Oaks Grange
Road between 18th Avenue and Bailey Hill Road (1308--77-57)
No written protests or requests to be heard were received.
.J. C.B. 1620--Levying assessments for River Road-Be1t1ine Road Sanitary
District (526--77-1003)
-
No written protests or requests to be heard were received.
Assessment Panel 3/6/78
141