Laserfiche WebLink
r~zNUrEs <br />City Council <br />August 26, 1987 <br />5ingo Jan Sherman, representing Servants of Mary, presented the City with <br />Presentation checks in th e amount of $10,000 from ~he Little Canada Bingo Hall and <br /> $1,000 from Brady's on Rice Street as donations to the City's Park <br />Agenda Fund. This money was raised through the charitable gambling operated <br />Item No. 4 at these two locations. <br />Lois Blomberg, representing St. Joseph's Society, presented the City <br />with a check in the amount of $10,000 as a donation to the City's <br />Park Fund which was raised through charitable gambling at the Little <br />CanadaBingo Hall. <br />Fahey thanked Servants of Mary and St. Joseph's Society on behalf of <br />the Council and the City for their donations. <br />Orr Lot Dr. Ernest Orr appeared before the Council requesting the division <br />Split of his property on Lake Gervais into two lots. <br />Agenda Fahey pointed out that the Planner has submitted a report dated <br />Item No. 6 July 7, 1987 recommending an alternative lot split be approved <br />than what has been presented by Dr. Orr. Fahey noted that the <br />Planning Commission has recommended a~proval of the Planner's <br />alternative. <br />Dr. Orr indicated that the alternative as suggested by the Planner <br />was acceptable to him. <br />Mrs. Scalze introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION N0. 87-II-376 - APPROVING THE <br />ORR PROPERTY DIVISION AS RECOMMENDED BY <br />THE CITY PLANNER IN HIS REPORT DATED JULY <br />7, 1987 BASED ON THE RECOMP1ENDATION OF THE <br />PLANNING COMP4ISSION <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mr. Blesener. <br />Ayes (4) Scalze, Blesener, Collova, Fahey. <br />Nays (0). <br />Reso1ution declared adopted. <br />This resolution appears in Resolution Book No. 18, Page 402, <br />Cedar Fahey opened the public hearing on the proposed amendment to the <br />Lakeside Cedar Lakeside PUD Agreement to split Lot 1, Block 1 and construct <br />PUD a single-family residential dwelling. Fahey also noted that the <br />Amendment Planning Com~nission recommended approval contingent on the <br />recommendations of the City Planner in his report dated August 11, <br />Agenda 1987 with the exception of the requirement for a shared driveway <br />Item No. 6 for the two single-family homes. <br />Gordy Kath, representing Brutger Companies, reported that the <br />proposal will meet setback requirements. Kath reported that <br />Page -2- <br />