My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2002-11-13 CC Packet
Centerville
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1996-2022
>
2002
>
2002-11-13 CC Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/13/2009 9:53:49 AM
Creation date
5/13/2009 9:51:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
208
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).
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />City of Centerville <br />October 23, 2002 <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft clarified that the liability insurance does not protect or affect the City <br />in any way. He then suggested that the City find out if there is a state requirement and <br />use that figure. <br /> <br />Ms. Moore-Sykes indicated that the Planning Commission is looking at a list of <br />amendments to Ordinance #4 and said she would add this to the list. <br /> <br />Steve Silverman, attorney and friend of Ms. Neuman, indicated he had been asked to <br />review Ordinance #70 and attend the meeting to discuss it on behalf of Ms. Neuman's <br />business. He then asked what Ordinance #71 was related to and if it would impact Ms. <br />Neuman's business. <br /> <br />Mayor Swedberg indicated that those using piercing guns are exempt but if they are using <br />more than that gets into something else. <br /> <br />Mr. Silverman indicated that Ms. Neuman's business is primarily a hair salon but is <br />marketed as a day spa that includes the hair salon business and massage as well as other <br />typical spa type activities. He then commented that body piercing is offered as a service <br />as well. <br /> <br />Mr. Silverman asked for clarification as to whether Ms. Neuman's business would be <br />exempt by definition within the distinguished section of the Ordinance. City Attorney <br />Hoeft indicated that, based on what has been represented about the business, he is <br />inclined to agree that the business would be distinguished. <br /> <br />Council Member Broussard Vickers said she did not think it made sense to use the <br />wording massage for beautification and asked if there was other wording that could be <br />used. City Attorney Hoeft suggested defining day spa. <br /> <br />Mr. Silverman suggested adding massage for beautification, or some other term to the list <br />of distinguished uses. <br /> <br />Ms. Neuman clarified that in order to call yourself a day spa you must be a licensed <br />salon. <br /> <br />Council Member Nelson suggested taking out the wording for the purposes of <br />beautification. City Attorney Hoeft suggested removing the word treatment. He then <br />said he was fine with taking out treatments and for the purpose of beautification only. <br /> <br />Mayor Swedberg asked if the police would still be able to go into an exempted business. <br />City Attorney Hoeft indicated they could go into the public part and could ask permission <br />to look around or would need to get a search warrant. <br /> <br />Motion by Council Member Nelson, seconded by Council Member Capra to close <br />the public hearinl!. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. <br /> <br />Page 3 of 15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.