07-25-84 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTF;S Ci.t:y Cotmci.l July 25, 1984 Pilli_nn & Pahey stated that i.f the C:ity i.s experienci.ng a probl.em, he is willi.ng ]ixcava[i.on to try some[hi_ng dif£ erent. (Cont.) Mrs. Scalze asked who pr.esently i,sues the permits. The CiLy Clerk repl.i.ed that he c(id, C4r. i'ahey asl<ed what i.s done ~ahen the City d:iscovers an ille~;a1 fi.l.l~ing operation. The CLerlc replied that these are tur.ned over to the 13uildi.ng Inspector. Mrs, Nardi.ni. staCed Chat the C:ity h1s a problem i.n that there are some open-ended fill permits baclc as f.ar as 1977. 'Chese permits have no expirati.on date. Mrs. D7ardinS. stated that in putting together the ordi.nance i.t was feLt that the Citq Cleri< should talce the application and handl.e the fees and then the permit should be Lurned over to the Building Inspeccor.. The City Clertc fel.t t:hat there should be an adm:i.ni.strative char.~;e Eor permi.ts for 25 to 75 yards of fi.ll, The Clerlc also aslced who pays for eng,i,neering fees should the Engzneer become involved. The Planner. replied that thi.s was not covered in the ordi.nance. Council felC that these should be pass-throu~h charges to the appli.cant, and this should, be pr.ovided for i.n the ordinance. 14rs. Scalze pointed out that: the [ee Eor 7 5 to 250 yards of Li.ll was $250. Scalze aslced i.f all. the Eee is not used, if the bczlance would be refunded to the applicant. It ~vas Council feelin~ that. a 610 admi.nistrative charge ~Lus any other costs i.ncur.red by the City due r.o T.he applicati.on should be retained and the balance of the fee should be ref.unded to the appli.cant. It was poi.nCed ouC that this is C:ity policy for conditional use permi.ts. Mrs. Nardini also fel.t that a~].0 admi.nistrative Eee should be chargecl £or permits for 25 to 75 yards of fill. Mrs. Scalze also indicated that uncter //2 Technical. Reports the Planner and City Attorney should be removed. The attor.ney f.el.t that Section L501.050 should be stridcen Lrom the ordi.nance as it is too cosC].y and not necessary. P1rs. Nardi.ni fel.t that the AtCOrney should revieca the pro»osed ordi.nance atter i.t i.s updated by the Planner. The clerlc askecl ltow the Lee for the bond would Ue set< Nlr, Pa1~ey poinCed otrt that the ordin:ince i.ndicates that the counci.l wi11 set the bon<i, but that a bond should not be required in routine cases. Page -16-