Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Juskiewicz continued that when he moved here, he bought two lots. He loved it up <br />here and the way it was situated. He had no intention of subdividing, but now it's a City <br />right next to me and I might as well sell these lots and make money - the quality of life has <br />already changed. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmennan stated that the City had a Charter amendment that passed by <br />about 80 percent of the voters. The citizens overwhelmingly voted they do not want City <br />sewer and water. If we do not follow what the people want, maybe they will vote in <br />someone else next time. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Peterson and seconded by Councilmember Beahen to order the <br />project contingent upon the City obtaining a positive appraisal report. <br /> <br />Further discussion: Councilmember Zimmerman asked Councilmember Peterson to <br />identify what he means by a "positive appraisal report". Councilmember Peterson <br />explained that a positive appraisal would be one that would prove that these properties will <br />be benefitted by this improvement. Attorney Goodrich stated he would try to get the <br />appraisal before the next meeting. Mr. Schroeder stated that staff will get the appraisal <br />report and inform Council of the result. If the report says that the proposed assessments <br />seem to be supportable, then we would have authorization to proceed. If the report does <br />not say that, then we would not proceed. Councilmember Peterson added that it also <br />means that ff after interpreting the report, the City Attorney would advise us not to proceed. <br />Mr. Schroeder stated that this is kind of a windshield appraisal; a full-blown appraisal <br />would have more value but could take a couple of months. Councilmember Peterson <br />commented that whatever type of appraisal is obtained will probably be challenged. He <br />asked if it was determined the benefit was not equal to the assessment cost, would the <br />project be "killed" to which Mr. Jankowski replied for this year, yes. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Hardin, Councilmembers Zimmerman, Peterson and <br />Beahen. Voting No: Councilmembers Beyer and Zimmerman. <br /> <br />Case #13: <br /> <br />Adopt Ordinance to Amend City Code Regarding Construction <br />Work Hours <br /> <br />Zoning Administrator Frolik stated that on September 12, 1995, Council introduced an <br />ordinance to amend City Code to change the permitted construction work hours from 6:00 <br />a.m. to 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. She noted a memorandum from Police <br />Chief Auspos which says that adoption of this will not allow even the homeowner to work <br />on his home on Sunday. He sugges~,xt Council take affirmative action to allow work on <br />Sundays using the same hours. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Peterson and seconded by Mayor Hardin to table the adoption <br />of this ordinance and send it back to the City Attorney with the idea that we do allow the <br />property owner Sunday activity but that we are not really looking to have commercial <br />construction take place on a Sunday. This would be restricted to an individual/private <br />homeowner. <br /> <br />Motion carded. Voting Yes: Mayor Hardin, Councilmembers Peterson, Beahen, Beyer <br />and Zimmerman. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />City Council/September 26, 1995 <br /> Page 17 of 22 <br /> <br /> <br />