1967 Jan to Dec - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

another easement which he stated did not appear to be listed in the report sub- mitted. Staff indicated other easement referred to only a public utility ease- ment on Lot 46. He questioned whether owners of property in this one particular easement illustrated would pay their share of the proposed improvements and whether easement was proposed as a temporary measure or would be considered a part of the lot it would cross (Lot 46). City Attorney stated Staff and the Attorney for the District would have to make determination as to benefit to be derived, and indicated another lot in this pro- posed district contained the same situation with double frontage (Lot 28). City Attorney also advised lot proposed for access to Bel Air Way by easement did have possibility of making possible use of their frontage on Jefferson Avenue if they construction a garage in the embankment at street level. City Manager affirmed fact access was possible to this lot from Jefferson Avenue, but that Planning Commission had granted the easement for access onto Bel Air Way mainly because of the hazardous condition which would be created at a narrow point on Jefferson by having a garage entrance directly into heavy traffic. Councilman Granger questioned policy being set by Planning Commission allowing access to interior lots by easement. Planning Director reported this type plan- ning not a policy of the Planning Commission, but granting of easement in this particular case appeared to be "lesser of two evils" as the greater evil would have been access to this particular lot on Jefferson Avenue because as previously stated roadway narrow at this point, heavily trafficked, and terrain very steep. Councilman Granger expressed doubt that financing for development would be possi- ble for this parcel because of this proposed access. Planning Director pointed out no deprivation for access on to Jefferson had been established, solution proposed considered less hazardous because of reasons stated and that legal access to Jefferson could still be claimed even if not used. Councilman Granger questioned improvements proposed for this easement and still expressed his objections to the proposal. City Manager reminded Council matter of easement not point at issue at this time, as it had been granted by the Plan- ning Commission, but decision of Council requested as to authorizing the forma- tion of an improvement district because of the reasons submitted by the Planning Commission in their recommendation. Assessment Districts) (For full text, See City Clerk's File - Councilman Henderson questioned procedural details for distribution of costs to lots involved in proposed assessment district, and was advised by City Attorney details of spread of assessments determined by Department of Public Works and Attorney for the District as to benefits to be derived by property owners in the District. Councilman Bury questioned another lot, (Lot 27) in proposed assess- ment district which indicated another double frontage on two different streets, 0 55 Ow @ er