Laserfiche WebLink
~~l.uu~rrs <br />Ci.t:y Counci.l. <br />Dec. 8, 19E32 <br />Chan~;e In The F,ngi.neer suggested thaC the improvemeni: heari.ng on the Di.anna <br />Zmp. hlearing Lane wat:erma~i.n peti.tion be postponed from January ].2 until. January <br />Di.anna Lzine 26. In thi.s way the hearinp, can be held at the same ti.me t}iat the <br />hearing is held on the County Road D iinprovement. <br />Agenda <br />ICem No. 9 P1rs. Nardini i.ntrocluced the foLlowi.ng r.esolution and moved i.t:s adopr.ionc <br />RP:SOLlJTION N0. 82-12-610 - CHANGING TflP 7?UBLIC <br />H}?A'RTNG ON TI~II; DIANNA LAN£ IMPROVI;MGDiT N0. £33-1 <br />rxoM JANUnRY 12, 1982 to JANUARY ?_6, ].9II3. <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mr. Hanson. <br />Aye, (5) Nar.di.ni, tlanson, Scal2e, Forsber.f;, }"+ahey. <br />Nayes (0). <br />Resol.uti.on eleclared adopted. <br />This resolution appears :Cn Resolution Book No. 8, Yage F~14. <br />County Road The Enp,i.neer reporCed that the Ci.ty has <br />D Peasibi.l.i.ty ~i.mprovement by waterma:i.n on County l3oad <br />Report Sylvan EsCates. "Chere i.s only 1.,000 fe~ <br />three houses to assess. 'fherefor.e, the <br />that the :irnprovement also conti_nue on D <br />AFenda also Greenbri.er. and to I.,aT3ore. <br />Item ~o. 11 <br />iir. PorsUerg statec! that thi., was a bad <br />staCed that he could not see putting in <br />absence oL a pet~iti.on. <br />received a peCiti.on for <br />C) From P~yne Avenue to <br />;t of improvement wict~ only <br />Pn~i.neer i.s proposing <br />acro>s to Arcade 1nd <br />time to do thi.s. Fahey <br />the ~i.mpr.ovement tivith Y.he <br />I'orsberg stated that if the people i.nvolved were in f:avor. of the <br />irnpr.ovement, Chen it oioul.d be f.ine cuith him. <br />Pahey stated that t:herc was no need f.rom an engineeri.nfl standpoi.nt <br />Y.o connrct the deadencts. I~'z~hey stated [hat he ~vould just as soon <br />wa:it until Che people peti.ti.onect f.or. the i.mprovement. <br />i4r,. Scalze aslced ~ahat the Council is going to <lo if the peopl.e <br />ef.fected by the petiCi.on on CounCy Road D do nol want the i.mprovement. <br />C4r. P'orsberg stated that he was not i.n f:avor of. putting in the projecC <br />just for the developer, <br />ilrs. Scal.ze sug~;esCecl that the vari.ous areas he kept separate i.n the <br />report because she f.el.t that the developer should pay 100% oE the <br />improvement. <br />Mr. L'ahey stated that he understood that the City has not put in ti <br />projecC for a single devel.oper in the pasL. The Cngi_neer disa~reed, <br />The f~.ng:ineer poi.ni:ed out tha~ i.t o~i.ll be cheaper per f.ooC f.or the <br />other people involved and the developer could put the coater ~in himself <br />che:~per than the City can. Thc: Lngi.neer suggested that_ the heari.ngs be <br />held and the Cot~nci.l. determi.nes what the peopLe want. <br />Page -9- <br />