Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Lowry was not sure what the City Attorney said about the signatures, but she <br />did not think they are legally required. She thought it was just to get the buy in. <br />Mr. Freihammer agreed and explained it is more or less to demonstrate that there is <br />support. He did not think there is a perfect process for this. <br /> <br />Member Luongo thought this policy was aimed more for individual homeowners <br />but renaming a street could also affect people living in apartments so she was not <br />sure if they should put in the policy to acknowledge people who live on the street <br />versus people who own the property. <br /> <br />Ms. Lowry explained staff did talk through that with the City Engineer and left it <br />as property owners and there was a reason for that, but she was not sure about the <br />reason. <br /> <br />Mr. Freihammer thought legally for a petition the person has to be a property owner <br />but certainly the notification can notify the people in an apartment building so those <br />people can talk to the building owner or come to a meeting to voice their concerns. <br />He thought the wording in section D to read “All property owners and tenants <br />within one thousand feet will be notified…” He noted the tenants would not be a <br />part of the petition process but would be a part of the notification, including <br />businesses. <br /> <br />Motion <br />Member Hodder moved, Member Luongo seconded, to recommend the City <br />Council accept the amended changes and approve the proposed Street Name <br />Change Policy. <br /> <br />Ayes: 7 <br />Nays: 0 <br />Motion carried. <br />Page 2 of 2 <br />Qbhf!32:!pg!342 <br /> <br />