HomeMy WebLinkAboutgr00090_000050_pg101April 23, 1979 Page 4
PUBLIC HEARING - NORTHCREST PARK ASSESSMENT
Attorney Meyers reviewed the criteria for an assessment procedure under
429 .061 whereby the City has the authority to access the cost of certain
improvements for the property described in the February 22, 1979 notice.
He stated that the March 12 public hearing had been continued at the
owners request, and that the total assessment amounted to $60,051.00.
Mr. Beim stated he had received notice of the proposed assessment and
that he had two requests, that the contingency for the $2,000 did not
indicate it was out of pocket cost, and that he be allowed to spread
the assessment over a 10 year period rather than 5 year.
Attorney Meyers replied that the contingency figures may reflect the
cost of defending the assessment and that it may not be proven as of
benefit to the property. He also explained that the Council could
amend the proposed assessment, if they so chose. He also stated that
under Resolution #939, the City has agreed not to certify the assess-
ment prior to August 1, 1979, and that the Council may take Mr. Beim's
comments under advisement and will advise him of their decision.
MSP (Ziebarth- Hodges) to continue the assessment hearing to July 9, 1979
at 7:40 PM. 5 ayes
Mayor McCarty closed the public hearing and reopened the regular
meeting.
PAJAK MINOR SUBDIVISION
Mr. Pajak reviewed his request for a minor subdivision. He explained
that the present garage was oversized, which the Planning Commission
had granted a variance for, and would sit 32' on the 5' easement between
the lots.
Councilmember Forslund stated that the Planning Commission had recommend-
ed an even lot split, but that not all the lots in the area were split
evenly. Official Rose reviewed on a City map the lots in the area and
pointed out those that were split evenly. He added that the Planning
Commission had recommended equal lot sizes, knowing that the oversided
garage may come down in the future. He stated that they had also granted
a variance for the garage size, but pointed out that the code only allows
one garage per home.
Attorney Meyers stated that he has a problem with allowing a building
to be that close to the lot line, and that they have indicated in the past
that they do not allow it.
Official Rose reported that it is Staff's recommendation to split the
lot equally, and reduce the size of the garage, which would then bring
both the garage and lot into conformance with code. Mr. Pajak replied
that he did not want to take any of the garage down.
Councilmember Rowley stated that she had a problem with allowing a
variance on the garage as the Council had gone to 218' for accessory
buildings, and that it would have to be a very large hardship to grant