1967 Jan to Dec - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

motion. Motion lost on tied roll call vote, Councilmen Bury and Petersen voting yes, Councilman Granger and Mayor Herkner voting no. In order to discuss this matter further as to possibility of continuing the public hearing until a full Council is present, Councilman Petersen moved to reopen the public hearing, seconded by Councilman Bury and carried. City Attorney, in reply to questions concerning eligibility of absent Councilmen to participate in a con- tinued hearing, advised that any members not present at this hearing would not be able to vote on this matter unless an adequate transcript of proceedings were made available beforehand. After further discussion and indication a further review of this matter might result in a more favorable action, Councilman Petersen moved to continue the public hear- ing to August 14th, seconded by Councilman Bury. Mayor Herkner offered to per- sonally inspect the premises again with the applicant by appointment. Motion carried. (MINUTE ORDER #67-170) PUBLIC HEARING, Lexington Avenue and Vicinity Improvement District, declared open and affidavits of mailing, posting and publication ordered filed. Staff report stated this public hearing being held on the assessments levied against each parcel of property benefitting from the improvements, and that property owners had been notified of the amounts proposed to be assessed. Letter of protest received from: Mr. & Mrs. James A Miller, owner of Wm. J. DuSel Realty Office, located at 106 Lexington Ave., protest- ing assessment in general; illegal because of allegation City had accepted Lexington Avenue as a completed and dedicated street; sidewalks and street surfacing defec- tive; damage which had resulted to their property, assess- ments proposed not an equitable pro -ratio in the assess- ment district, and claiming damages alleged to have been caused to their business and general health in excess of 10,000. Attorney for the District, Robert J. Costello, advised first two allegations made by protestant lacked fact, as in his opinion assessments levied are in accordance with statutes and assessments are legal.. Superintendent of Streets replying to other specific allegations of protestant, reported sidewalks and street surfacing had been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications and were not de- fective; improvements have not damaged property but have improved the value thereof. Attorney for the District also reported he had discussed assessments for the Dis- trict with the Superintendent of Streets and has been advised assessments were based on benefit and are equitable for value received and after making apersonal inspection Superintendent of Streets advised there are no damages. Council questioned whether this type of business would be considered allavable in this zoning district. City Attorney advised area, is in a R-4 District and if business had been located at these premises for some length of time, it could be operating under a non -conforming use. Superintendent of Streets also explained the cautionary measure which had been taken by the contractor and Staff to extend relief to the property owners in the area for ingress and access to their property during the construction period. Councilman Petersen moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Councilman Bury and carried.