Laserfiche WebLink
292 <br /> <br />Ms. Waters also requested information on the plans for fee <br />changes. <br /> <br /> On motion by Ms. Waters, seconded by Mr, Toscano, the <br />$90,000 appropriation for the use of golf course fees for <br />personnel was offered and carried over to the next meeting <br />for consideration. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano stated that he understood that it was a <br />critical time for a major investment at the golf course, but <br />concurred that additional information was needed prior to the <br />second reading. <br /> <br />ORDINANCE: CLOSING A PORTION OF FLORENCE ROAD <br /> <br /> Mr. Hendrix stated that a public hearing had been held <br />on closing a portion of Florence Road, and the Planning <br />Commission voted against recommending that the street be <br />closed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Vandever stated that he was disturbed by the <br />Planning Commission's action since the property can be <br />developed by right and, by closing the street, the City can <br />require access to the property on Rives Street. Mr. Vandever <br />noted that the Planning Commission recommended to deny the <br />closing because they felt a policy should be adopted <br />regarding street closings. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters stated that she would prefer to see an actual <br />development proposal and asked whether the developers would <br />prefer to defer the matter and return to Council at a later <br />date. <br /> <br /> Mr. George McCallum, attorney for the petitioner for the <br />street closing, stated that the applicant is willing to agree <br />to the condition that the two R-3 parcels be combined into <br />one parcel and that there will be no public access (except <br />for public utilities) on Florence Road. Mr. McCallum stated <br />that the development plans are still evolving, and requested <br />that Council not defer action. Mr. McCallum stated that the <br />street closing is actually longer than referred to in the <br />ordinance. Mr. McCallum added that no public purpose is <br />served by keeping the street open. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters questioned whether subsequent owners could <br />challenge the conditions agreed to by the applicant and Mr. <br />Gouldman stated that the conditions could be included in a <br />covenant that runs with the land. <br /> <br /> Rev. Edwards questioned whether the land which would be <br />conveyed in the street closing would allow another unit to be . <br />built and expressed concern that the City was giving away <br />property. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gouldman stated that the City does not actually own <br />the street, but would only be giving up its easement to the <br />property. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters stated that she felt closing the street would <br />proVide a public benefit if conditions are met and made a <br />motion to approve the ordinance. <br /> <br /> Rev. Edwards asked what the advantage would be to <br />putting the two parcels together and Mr. Huja stated that <br />combining the parcels would allow safer access to the <br />property. <br /> <br /> Ms. Slaughter seconded the motion and the ordinance <br />entitled "AN ORDINANCE CLOSING, VACATING AND DISCONTINUING A <br />PORTION OF FLORENCE ~STREET" was offered and carried over to <br />the next meeting for consideration. <br /> <br />ORDINANCE: APPROVING SALE OF UNBUILDABLE LOT ON GROVE STREET <br /> <br /> <br />