PRECM 01-06-1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Meeting Minutes Page 12 January 26, 1988 ' Mattila reviewed staff report stating if the project were not to R-132 go through, residences are permitted in B4 and noted all uses in Ark ,Housing B4 go through a special use permit. First Reading Report 88-35 Motion by Larson, seconded by Williams, to WAIVE THE READING AND HOLD THE FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW BRIGHTON .ZONING ORDINANCE BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF NEW BRIGHTON FROM R-lA, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, TO B-4, DOWN- TOWN BUSINESS (GENERALLY THE SOUTH CORNER OF TENTH STREET N.W.-AND THIRD AVENUE N.W.). 5 Ayes - O Nayes, Motion Carried Locke reviewed the history of the Benke summarized the homes would would be additional assistance agreement. 5 Ayes.- 0 Nayes, Motion Carried project and the staff report. Amendment to Development ~e a higher value and that there Agreement from the city than the original (Svee) Report 88-36 Resolution 88-14 Benke stated council is in receipt of a memo dated January 26, Hearing: 1988, from Bradley .Gunn, attorney-for A. Thomas Oswalt attorney, A. Thomas Oswalt and suggested we focus on the appeal and the client's arguments as Relocation Claim to why the decision should be granted. LeFevere. summarized the history of the claim, then suggested Oswalt or Gunn be given the opportunity to make a presentation to the council. Benke understands the staff and City Manager's decision was made after consideration of all materials submitted and-after consulta- tion with the relocation consultant-and LeFevere and the only in- formation not avail able prior to that decision was the document from Gunn dated .January 26, 1988,-which council received this evening. Gunn reviewed the history of the relocation case and the subse- quent appeal. Regarding the $21,-000, Williams stated Jack Bagley, relocation consultant, reversed that opinion and recommended a lesser amount at a more recent time; Gunn .indicated Bagley did reverse his original opinion. LeFevere stated a total remaining claim of about $250 million has .not been explained tonight; the price differential dispute is the principal area of contention with respect to the housing replace- ment payment. Under the regulations, .the replacement payments are made up of price differential, mortgage differential, and inciden- tal .expenses; the mortgage differential and incidental expenses have been agreed upon.. LeFevere stated Gunn did not point out that the regulations provide the maximum payment for. housing re- placement of $15,000 unless the city council makes the determina-