My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCMin_82Nov4_Special
FalconHeights
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
198x
>
1982
>
CCMin_82Nov4_Special
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 4:19:04 PM
Creation date
6/18/2009 9:06:39 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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
~~-V <br />MINUTES <br />SP's CIAL CITY COUPJCIL r~ETII~?G <br />NO`JEMBER !, 1982 <br />PAGE ~ <br />After a lengthy discussion on an amendment to Ordinance 64, the number of <br />parking spaces necessary for row construction of multiple dwelling units <br />with no on-street parking, and when the Planning Commission will have the <br />remainder of the zoning ordinance rewritten (approximately 1 year), Council- <br />member Eggert moved, seconded by Councilmember Ciernia, that the Council <br />place a hold on the approval of any further variances of this nature until <br />the Council can amend the existing ordinance, and to direct the City Attorney <br />to draft an amendment to the existing ordinance stating that for multiple <br />dwelling units two parking spaces be required in those areas where there is <br />on-street parking and two and one-half parking spaces be required if there <br />is no on-street parking, and that one half of those parking spaces be <br />enclosed. <br />Council discussed the plans submitted by Grace Lai, for a proposed con- <br />struction of a six unit apartment building on Lot 14, Blocklof Labalestra <br />Park. Council felt there was not adequate parking available, there would <br />be problems with snow remnval and inadequate access for emergency vehicles. <br />Councilmember Ciernia stated he felt, that in all fairness to the Planning <br />Commission, since the Ordinances are their guidelines, and Council feels <br />something is inadequate, it is Council's responsibility to make an <br />adjustment. Upon a vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously« <br />Councilmember Chestovich inquired as to whether or not any action had been <br />taken in regard to the Tatum drainage ditch situation. Engineer Lemberg <br />explained that a study had been done sometime ago and that the problem <br />with the ditch is a matter of maintenance to alleviate standingv~e.ter and <br />silting. He stated it would be possible to install a temporary bitumirous <br />flume if the four property owners adjacent are in agreement and would grant <br />ar.e asement to install and maintain the flume. He stated that the problem <br />is a temporary one as the water is generated on the Hawkins~Hermes property <br />which would be handled by storm sewer when the property is developed. Council <br />directed the Clerk Administrator to contact the four property owners involved <br />and see if they are interested in meeting with the Engineer to discuss the <br />matter. <br />Councilmember Chestovich asked whether or not the Clerk Administrator had <br />contacted rubbish haulers for fee information as requested at the July 6, <br />1982 rrieeting. Clerk Administrator Barnes replied that some, but not all, <br />haulers contacted had replied and that, perhaps, those who did not reply <br />may be uneasy about the possibility of exclusive franchise operations. <br />Following a discussion, the Clerk Administrator was directed to contact <br />the ~,4innesota Waste Hauler's Association and request that a speaker from <br />that group attend a future Council Meeting. <br />Councilmember Chestovich asked what balance is still due on the construction <br />of the row Community Building and if some payment is being withheld pending <br />satisfactory completion. Engineer Lemberg explained that there is still <br />a large payment due, plus 5~ being held back on the entire project, and that <br />Council may, at their discretion, withhold the liquidated damages 0100.00 <br />per day)~?ize to the fact that the building was not completed by September 1, <br />the date stipulated in the contract. <br />ORDIIVTANCE 6!~ <br />PARKING <br />RECIJIREMENTS <br />DISCUSSED <br />TATUM DRAIN- <br />AGE DITCH <br />DISCUSSION <br />RUBBISH <br />REMOVAL <br />DISCUSSION <br />COMMUn'ITY <br />BUILDING <br />DISCL'SSICN <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.