Laserfiche WebLink
Session 1733, Minutes <br />October 12, 1998 <br /> <br />TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS ($200.00) TO THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS <br />($300.00) AND THE FEE FOR CERTAIN ADDITIONAL SERVICES FROM <br />THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS ($35.00) TO FIFTY DOLLARS ($50.00); CONTAINING <br />A SAVING CLAUSE AND PROVIDING A PENALTY. <br /> <br />The bill was given its first reading and assigned #8408. <br /> <br />COMMENTS ON LETTER FROM WENDY KATZ: <br /> <br />Mr. Wagner wished to comment further on Ms. Katz's letter, which was summarized <br />earlier in the meeting. The general tenor of the letter is that we did not send out more <br />information about what was going to happen to the residents. Technically, we are not <br />required to do this, but he believes that the city could do a better job of being sensitive <br />to neighborhoods that are going to be impacted like this and try to get more information <br />out to them. Ms. Katz's main point was that West Kingsbury was closed off on Friday, <br />October 2ha, without any hearing or warning. This was closed under section 28.7 of our <br />city code, which a,lows for closure of streets with city manager approval for construction <br />purposes. This was why the street was closed. It was not a permanent closure, unless <br />it was vacated - which it now is. Responding to her point number 7: She wanted to <br />know why each resident within 185 feet was not notified of this hearing as with the <br />rezoning in February. Mr. Wagner understands that this manner of notification is not <br />required for a public hearing on vacating streets, but only for public hearings for <br />changing the zoning map, unless requested by the City Council. Mr. Wagner requested <br />the City Manager and the Mayor, or a combination of the two, respond to Ms. Katz's <br />letter, point by point. <br /> <br />Mr. Lieberman wished to comment on her point of holding this meeting on a religious <br />holiday. He wished to take some responsibility for having missed that. He did not <br />pursue his previous year's religious calendar quite far enough. A meeting should not <br />have been held on this date. Mr. Schoomer said he would also share the responsibility. <br /> <br />Mr. Munkel was very taken aback by this letter and the calls that he had received about <br />this procedure being such a surprise to the neighborhood. It was made very clear in <br />the site plan that the building would go right up the street. Theirs was no need to close <br />the street before now, because theirs was no project before now. When the site plan <br />was approved, this action was approved. This should not be a surprise and it should <br />not be construed as pulling a fast one. It seems as if the residents want to continue to <br />fight about this, which he is sorry about, but this was approved months ago. <br /> <br />Mr. Lieberman sairJ that theirs is a general feeling that they want to be kept informed of <br />the contractor's activities. The Council is not kept informed of the contractor's activities <br /> <br /> <br />