Laserfiche WebLink
i !'LNUTES <br />Ci.ty Counc:i.1 <br />Sepe. 2S, l9d'3 <br />Imp. 33-].8 i~4rs, Scalze su~;gested Chat.: the prooercy ownFrs lool.c ac. rezonina the <br />(Cont,) pr.operty ~Lrom industrial to res:ident~.iaJ.. `1r. Paheq suggested that the. <br />ne~i.};hborl~oocl considcr that more tl~ian 50% of the i.ndustrial. property <br />owners coulcl come in emd requesC. t}.ie i.mprovement. <br />A4s. Nadeau 2slr,ed 1;he perc~ntage of property thaC P~fr. Au~;e ommed. <br />The Clerlc repli_ed tha~t Aup.,e m~ned 2E3%, <br />14r. Porsber~ reported that 35% of. the px~operty o~aners can pe.t:Ltiun <br />foc ai~i improvement. I'ahey stated th~c 35% i.s enough to even orde~r <br />an :improvement, Y>ut Ci.C:y policy has b~e.n to order an improvement i.f. <br />:>0% or more ~oere i.n favor of: :iC, <br />M.rs. Scalre statecl tt~aC it mi.g1~C be worthwhile t:o zone thi.s properCy <br />to resi_denti.al. or some kind of mix Chat would coork for everqone. <br />Sc~lze. pointed out thaC at thi.s poi.nt Coi.mcil caas not i.n .favor of <br />orderi.n~ t!ie i.mprovement. <br />7'he CiCy Olcrtc poi.nt:ed ouf~. thaC there are senior ciC-izen deferments <br />oF assessment:s. <br />t9rs. Scalze ,tated that tl~e Ci_ty cal.l.ed the hearing t:o gi.ve the <br />property owners a cl~ance to say whether or not: Chey wanted Clie <br />i.mprovemenC:. <br />i4r. L(ei.nel aslced ~if. cost ovcrrun ~:aas f:igured i.n the estimnte. The <br />Gngineer x~eported tl~at i_t w~s and also poinCed out that Loe the 1<~xst <br />Lew years est~i.mates 1~iave not: been too low. <br />Pat i'ratttil.one ~v~s concerned L1~aC if a 42 toot ~.z_ide road ~aerit ~i.n <br />t:haC it woulct be t~oo close to lai.s kiouse. <br />Mr. 1-Zyland asked i.f the C~i.ty figared i.n the estimete any costs :i.{'. <br />property had to be condcmnecl. Ily~iand also as'ced thr~ procedtire Eor <br />.p,ett,i.ng a senior ci.t.i.zen deferment. <br />~4r. T'aliey reported that a senior ciCizen defcrrnent ~is p,r.anted <br />on7.y iP a seni_or. cit:izen has an i.ncane l.evcl lower tl~iln 2% of Che <br />yearl.y asses ,ment payinent:, <br />The F,ngi_neer re.poxCed that costs oi condemnation z~re noC Eip,urecl i.n <br />the est:imate. 'Che linp.,ineer ,reported that it has been hi.s experie.nce <br />that ,if. property has to be condcmned, th~~~ project will. probabl.y not <br />go. <br />rlr, }leine7. aslced i.i a road could be put in thzit endecl in a cu7.-de-sac <br />at: th~ Pi.ise property. <br />6calz~ stated Chat she ~aould not be in favor ~E Ei cul-de-sac ,for <br />inclustcial. oropcrC9. <br />P zge -~;- <br />