Laserfiche WebLink
"'Tf <br /> iFebruary 27,lgao <br /> Henry <br /> to the President <br /> said Center, opposition <br /> as°irrvght right-of-way o - <br /> • culteb <br /> special <br /> 4th an opposed <br /> tight- <br /> -1 there traffic a t the <br /> character of the neighborhood will be changed. <br /> Coundilman Aldcroft asked <br /> and Mr.Newton said the main reason for leaving that corner as is is to <br /> slow the traffic down. <br /> .• site...a Mr.Newton saidthe ve ong x wof the <br /> Councilma hthey have not adopted along x Plan but <br /> have done some feasibility work. • <br /> I Moved by Councilman <br /> on,seconded by Councilman Pope,to concur' •. <br /> in the Planning <br /> pe y permit to Commission's <br /> sLuthermChi ldtcenter. grant thespecial <br /> Roll <br /> was callled led yes,with all Councilmen voting <br /> who was exc (exceptCouncilman Gipson, <br /> Motion Carried <br /> • <br /> PUHLIc HEARING-(CB 801-15( <br /> � A public h held o charges a <br /> rate <br /> chargnt City Attorney,reported that es Ordinance <br /> a( dressed <br /> proposed etely from other ordinances. He stated the rates being <br /> heiw with the <br /> City <br /> necessary in R <br /> '!' ne than <br /> whah area <br /> iivdeDepartment <br /> V the future in their <br /> V facility schedule <br /> areasand in some tforth. <br /> that t this <br /> e basis that <br /> this <br /> subdividedomer ordinance. These are charges that <br /> resently . <br /> property into equity with other of the utility system. <br /> • <br /> lman Baker said <br /> e had received a letter saying this <br /> not be equitable because other <br /> and MrJones ruplied that this is not a development charge,for ture h.but rather g .n this <br /> Mr.Jones said that he and members of the staff had met with Ed Heavy ( <br /> . and Falk Kelm and they had raised some issues that they wanted raised <br /> in an EIS. Mr.Jones said an EIS is being done in the passing of the <br /> uding this one and Mr.Heavy and Mr.Kelm had some <br /> prepared. These considerations lconsiderations that they wanted Councilshouldider in the EIS as being <br /> • considered <br /> . ., time as economies concerning the late comer charge. 'bigea°v it at this . <br /> • imposition of this charge is not with the impact this charge dthe v 1 cost.1 Mi.Jones reported that the andthatthe d <br /> • <br /> charges v housinge on costs <br /> different s <br /> area for <br /> single family residences and when the builder p these chargesthey <br /> are passed on to the consumer. <br /> I <br />