1986-04-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I Council Meeting Minutes April 22, 1986 Motion by Benke, seconded by Gunderman, to AMEND THE MOTION BY ADDING "AND TO IDENTIFYING WHAT FACTORS NEED TO BE CONSIDERED IN SETTING AN EQUITABLE AND ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE FEE STRUCTURE, REVIEW FACTORS THAT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE PAST, AND DETER- MINE WHAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED, AND THAT SAID RECOMMENDATION BE IN AN ORDINANCE-CHANGE FORMAT". Schmidt stated that he had reservations about going through the system one more time; and, while each establishment is important, he feels comfortable with staff's recommendation and does not see what additional input the Financial Policy Advisory Board might be able to provide. 4 Ayes - 1 Naye (Schmidt) - Amendment Carried Williams asked if council felt it important to achieve some type of comparability with other cities; Benke stated it was and that a comparison is part of the staff report which would be con- sidered by Financial Policy Advisory Board. 4 Ayes - 1 Naye (Schmidt) - Motion Carried as Amended Kelley reviewed staff report concerning the establishment of a False Alarm Ordinance, stating that most police calls are false alarms, and that most fire alarms are valid. Kelley stated the proposed ordinance is to encourage proper use of the alarm with- out discouraging people from having an alarm; and stated that the current cost is approximately two to four manpower weeks per year to deal with false alarms. Motion by Gunderman, seconded by Brandt, to WAIVE THE READING AND HOLD THE FIRST READING OF THE FALSE ALARM ORDINANCE. Benke stated the quality is what we need to address, even though the numbers do not indicate quantity. Williams believes the staff has drafted an ordinance which is logi- cal and shows some restraint and encouraged the adoption. 5 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried (Due to an emergency, Gunderman left the meeting at 9:33 p.m.) Krueger reviewed staff report concerning an application for a preliminary PRO and plat to permit a zero-lot-line development, stating the Planning Commission recommends denial of the applica- tion based on the inability of the proposed plat to meet the purpose of the PRO ordinance and on the probability that the pro- posed plat will be detrimental to the immediate area. Locke stated the property is within Tax Increment District #6 and is a part of the Water Ridge Associates development that was proposed last year; at that time the property was rezoned and a PRD was approved well as a final plat which includes the Page Seven False Alarm Ordinance First Reading Report 86-98 Preliminary PRD-46 and PL-144 - Leier Estates No. 2 Report 86-75 Resolution 86-37