Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCM032672_. ~9 City Hall Council Chambers 250 East Pine Street - ~: September 26, 1972 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by Mayor Manasco. Councilmembers present:- Hamer, Mills, Rowe, Russell, Tally and Mayor Manasco. Councilmember -absent was Hadley. Planning Commission members present were Bradshaw, Banks, Bowers and McBee. .The first matter brought before the City Council was the proposed improvement of.Mazama Street from Third to Sixth Street consisting of curbs, gutters. and 'AC ,paving. Bids for the construction having been opened at 4:OO P.M. Monday September 25, 1972 the City Engineer rendered his report and reocomendation. M.C. Lininger bid X13,198.50, Tru-Mix bid $14,836.00. The Engineer's estimate of ,total project cost was X14,300.00. The Engineer recommended an Award of C6rltra~~~te~.£~ie' MC:~l7ningero£rm:~~`~-,On= demotc3neb~s~Y!alty;:~r-s:edo~d'ed~{by. Russell `and a unanimous affirmative vote of the Councilmembers present the Engineer's r report was accepted and complete curbs and gutters were ordered for all of the project. On a motion by Hamer,. seconded by Mills the contract with M.C. Lininger Co. for Mazama Street and Tr-u-Mix Company for North Central Valley Drive were -.ordered .executed by a unanimous affirmative vote of the Councilmembers present '': Wand.woting. ~The;City_ Administrator next presented an ordinance to correct Ordinance No. 1072 which: was adopted at the Regular Meeting of the City Council held September: l2, 1972 which declared the Council's intention to proceed with construction of Mazama Street from Third to Sixth Streets. The revision added to the text of the Ordinance those properties to be benefitted and described these properties ;. '`.by_tax lot number. On a motion by Mills, seconded by Hamer and a unanimous -- affirmative vote of the Councilmembers resent and voti Ordinance No. 1073 was adopted. Ordinance No. 1073 amends Ordinance No. 1072 . An ordinance authorizing the Mazama project and ordering the construction and setting October 10, 1972 as a date of public hearing was next presented for '.Gouncil consideration and action. On a motion by Hamer, seconded by Tally `'Ordinance No. 1074 was adopted by a unanimous affirmative vote of Council- members present and voting. Next before the City Council was Mr. Keith Damon, 100 Donna Way, who had applied _ for a.variance from the provisions of the-fence ordinance to allow him to build afsix-foot fence to his property line on the cul-de-sac known as Kathryn Court. `: A'drawing of this property,_~_the proposed fence and the effect on the other- - propertyowners on the cul-de-sac was presented for Council consideration. Mr. .Damon explained the reason for his request and answered questions as proposed by members of the Council. After due consideration the application for a variance was denied on a motion by Mills, seconded by Russell and a unanimous affirmative vote of Councilmembers present and voting. The City Council next called for a review of the preliminary plat of Moore Park Subdivision as approved by the Planning Commission at its regular meeting of~September 19, 1972. After considerable discussion it was generally agreed ,. _ ~ . _ .., ~' ~.~ that the revision of the preliminary plat was the least desirable but the potential venting of traffic to the west Grant Road as shown on the revised plan was acceptable and should be incorporated with the original plat. On a motion by Hamer, seconded by Tally, Mr. R. Russell's appeal of the Plan- ning Commission decision of September 19, 1972 was denied. Motion carried by a by a unanimous affirmative vote of the City Council. On a motion by Tally seconded by Russell and a unanimous affirmative vote of the City Council. On a motion by Tally seconded by Russell and a unanimous affir- mative vote of the Councilmembers present and voting the City Council over- turned the Planning Commission decision of September 19, 1972 as relates to the Moore Park Subdivision approved of revised preliminary plat with restrictions relative to venting traffic to the west and approved the original preliminary plat incorporating the City Engineer's recommendation. This venting of b~affic was accomplished by a proposed street to `the west located about midway on the north-south road of the Subdivision. The payment of the Slurry Seal bill for Pine Street was next presented. This matter had been continued for 90 days from date of laying of the seal to determine whether the job was satisf actory or not. C. P. Westwood, City .Engineer, presented a written report to the effect that .the slurry seal was approximately 85~ satisf actory and the patching and surf acing portion amount- ing to $340. should be considered totally satisf actory. A motion by Tally to deny the payment of the bill as presented died for the lack of a second. A motion by Rowe, seconded by Russell to pay 100 of the surf acing and patch- in and 50f of the slurry bill was approved by an affirmative vote of Four ~4~. Councilman Tally voted no. The total amount authorized for payment was X340.00 plus X1,900.20 or X2,240.20. This amount is to be charged to the reserve for street improvement funds. The. revised preliminary plat for Valley Estates Subdivision was~next presented for -Council review. With a minimum of discussion and a letter from Consolidated Development Corporation explaining that they had complied with the City Engin- eer's recommendation, the revised preliminary plat was approved by -general consent of the Council. The revised preliminary plat for Malabar Estates was next presented for review by the City Council. After considerable background information_by the members of the Planning Commission present who explained the body's action in approving the revised plat as a result of the City Engineer's recommendation, a general discussion of all aspects of the subdivision was discussed as relates to the preliminary plat. On a motion by Rowe, seconded by Hamer the decision of the Planning Commission was overruled by an affirmative vote of all Council- members. The City Administrator was instructed to inform Mr. Farnsworth, owner and developer of this action; noting the following reasons: 1. Insufficient venting of vehicixl.ar traffic in the Subdivision. 2. Insufficient ingress and egress facilities to the Subdivision. 3. A buffer zone between the industrial property to the east and this proposed residential development would be most desirable. 4. Owner and developer should consider a different use considering the use of surrounding area. 5. The proposed use of this area does not conform with nor is it compatible with the sourrounding area uses. 9 The Council and Planning Commission members were advised that October 10 would be the date for hearing any appeal from Mr. Farnsworth of this decision. A general discussion of Planning actions and theories and the policy determin- ations as each of these related to both the City Planning Commission and the City Council. No definite decisions were reached and there being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 P.M. Approved Ma r 1 Attest: ity Recorder Approved by me this day of , 1972. Approved ay 1