Laserfiche WebLink
April 23, 1979 Page 4 <br />PUBLIC HEARING - NORTHCREST PARK ASSESSMENT <br />Attorney Meyers reviewed the criteria for an assessment procedure under <br />429 .061 whereby the City has the authority to access the cost of certain <br />improvements for the property described in the February 22, 1979 notice. <br />He stated that the March 12 public hearing had been continued at the <br />owners request, and that the total assessment amounted to $60,051.00. <br />Mr. Beim stated he had received notice of the proposed assessment and <br />that he had two requests, that the contingency for the $2,000 did not <br />indicate it was out of pocket cost, and that he be allowed to spread <br />the assessment over a 10 year period rather than 5 year. <br />Attorney Meyers replied that the contingency figures may reflect the <br />cost of defending the assessment and that it may not be proven as of <br />benefit to the property. He also explained that the Council could <br />amend the proposed assessment, if they so chose. He also stated that <br />under Resolution #939, the City has agreed not to certify the assess- <br />ment prior to August 1, 1979, and that the Council may take Mr. Beim's <br />comments under advisement and will advise him of their decision. <br />MSP (Ziebarth- Hodges) to continue the assessment hearing to July 9, 1979 <br />at 7:40 PM. 5 ayes <br />Mayor McCarty closed the public hearing and reopened the regular <br />meeting. <br />PAJAK MINOR SUBDIVISION <br />Mr. Pajak reviewed his request for a minor subdivision. He explained <br />that the present garage was oversized, which the Planning Commission <br />had granted a variance for, and would sit 32' on the 5' easement between <br />the lots. <br />Councilmember Forslund stated that the Planning Commission had recommend- <br />ed an even lot split, but that not all the lots in the area were split <br />evenly. Official Rose reviewed on a City map the lots in the area and <br />pointed out those that were split evenly. He added that the Planning <br />Commission had recommended equal lot sizes, knowing that the oversided <br />garage may come down in the future. He stated that they had also granted <br />a variance for the garage size, but pointed out that the code only allows <br />one garage per home. <br />Attorney Meyers stated that he has a problem with allowing a building <br />to be that close to the lot line, and that they have indicated in the past <br />that they do not allow it. <br />Official Rose reported that it is Staff's recommendation to split the <br />lot equally, and reduce the size of the garage, which would then bring <br />both the garage and lot into conformance with code. Mr. Pajak replied <br />that he did not want to take any of the garage down. <br />Councilmember Rowley stated that she had a problem with allowing a <br />variance on the garage as the Council had gone to 218' for accessory <br />buildings, and that it would have to be a very large hardship to grant <br />