My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-14-05 Council Meeting Minutes
sbend
>
Public
>
Common Council
>
Minutes
>
Common Council Meeting Minutes
>
2005
>
02-14-05 Council Meeting Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/10/2007 10:20:56 AM
Creation date
12/10/2007 10:20:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council - City Clerk
City Counci - Date
2/14/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 24,2005 <br />Councilmember Varner stated that one of the questions that arise from these kinds of <br />rezonings are signage. What kind of sign is going to be placed out in front of the <br />building? Is there going to be a huge lighted sign? Councilmember Varner asked that <br />since the bill is being amended to limit the use can an agreement be reached to limit what <br />type of signage can be used. Councilmember Varner stated that he would like to see a <br />sign no higher than four (4) feet above the ground. <br />Ms. Donohue stated that she is willing to an agreement on signage. She stated that she <br />already had a copy of the rules on signage. <br />Councilmember Pfeifer stated a concern that the restrictions are initiated by the Council <br />and questioned that once the petitioner and Area Plan work out the agreement, the <br />Council should have a chance to look at it, to make sure that the agreement is in <br />compliance with the Council. <br />Councilmember Puzzello stated that if this subject would come up again ten (10) years <br />from now, how would anyone know that this agreement existed? <br />Council Attorney, Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand stated that by State Law the commitments <br />are limited solely to the jurisdiction of the Area Plan Commission. If the Council would <br />go forward this evening by limiting the use solely to a full service beauty salon, that is it. <br />That is the only use that can take place, the commitment is then recorded, and the Council <br />could obtain a copy of that document. <br />Councilmember Rouse questioned whether the Council could approve this bill tonight <br />without the Area Plan Commission hearing the commitments. <br />Council Attorney, Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand stated that it is proper to send it back to <br />Area Plan, subject to the commitment, where you are limiting the use solely to this one <br />use. <br />This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the above bill, proponents <br />and opponents were given and opportunity to be heard. <br />There being no one present wishing to speak to the Council either in favor of or in <br />opposition to this bill, Councilmember Varner made a motion for favorable <br />recommendation to full Council concerning this bill as substituted and amended, subject <br />to a written commitment approved by the Area Plan Commission, limiting the use solely <br />to a full service beauty salon. Councilmember Dieter seconded the motion which carried <br />by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. <br />BILL NO. 3-05 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON <br /> COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND <br /> AMENDING ARTICLE 18 OF CHAPTER 2 OF THE <br /> SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE TO SET AND <br /> ADJUST FEES FOR DOCUMENTS AND SERVICES <br />Councilmember Kelly, Chairperson, Community and Economic Development <br />Committee, reported that this committee held a Public Hearing on this bill this afternoon <br />and voted to send it to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. <br />Mr. Thomas L. Bodnar, Assistant City Attorney, 1400 County-City Building, South <br />Bend, Indiana made the presentation for this bill. <br />Mr. Bodnar advised that this bill would allow an amendment to some existing charges <br />along with a number of additional charges for services and documents the City may <br />supply. The first change is the amount due for motor vehicle accident reports is raised to <br />$5.00. This is a closer reflection of the accurate cost. I.C. 9-29-11-1(a) provides that <br />$3.00 is a minimum fee which the City may charge. The motor vehicle inspection and <br />the rebuilt salvage inspection has been combined at a uniform fee. The vast majority of <br />such inspections are performed at the police station. I.C. 10-13-3-30 provides fees for <br />16 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.