Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTFS <br />City Council <br />September 28, 1988 <br />Palmen Mr. Fahey introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />Landfill <br />Permit RESOLUTION N0. 88-9-408 - APPROVI~lG A LANDFILL <br />(Cont.) PERMIT FOR MR. RON PALMEN FOR UP TO AN ADDITIONAL <br />1,000 CUBIC YARDS OF FILL OVER THE PREVIOUS 1,000 <br />CUBIC YARDS OF FILL APPROVED, SUBJECT TO REVIEW <br />AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY ENGINEER AS WELL AS <br />SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE WATERSHED, ARMY CORPS <br />OF ENGINEERS AND ANY OTHER AGENCY THAT MIGHT HAVE <br />JURISDICTION <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mr. Collova. <br />Ayes (4) Fahey, Collova, Scalze, LaValle. <br />Nays (0). <br />Mr. Blesener was not pr~esent. <br />The for•egoing resolution was declared adopted. <br />This resolution appears in Resolution Book No. 20, Page 422. <br />Imp. No. The City Engineer r~eported that the City recently advertised for~ bids <br />88-19 for Improvement No. 8~-19, the Saiko drainage improvement. Seven bids <br /> were received, the low bid from Outdoor Desian, Inc. in the amount of <br />Agencla $14,340. The Engineer repo rted that he has checked the references <br />Item No. 11 of the firm, and recommends tha t the low bid be awarded. <br />Mr. Collova introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION N0. 88-9-409 - ACCEPTING AND <br />AWARDING THE BID OF OUTDOOR DESIGN IN THE <br />AMOUNT OF $14,340 FOR IP9PROVEMENT N0. 88-19 <br />BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY <br />ENGINEER <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mrs. Scalze. <br />Ayes (5) Collova, Scalze, LaValle, Fahey, Blesener. <br />Nays (0). <br />Resolution declared adopted. <br />This resolution appears in Resolution Book No. 20, Page 423. <br />FinaServe The City Planner prepared and submitted to the City Council a survey <br />Sign showing how the City's Sign Ordinance compared with that of other <br />cities on the issue of non-conforming signs and sign improvements. <br />Agenda This r•eport is dated September~ 14, 1988. <br />Addition <br />Fahey pointed out that the results of the survey show that if a business <br />wants to ptat up a new sign, the sign must be conforming to the or•dinance. <br />However, most cities will allow an existing sign to remain even though <br />the building or site are being improved. Fahey also pointed out that <br />originally FinaServe was requesting a variance to erect a new sign, <br />however, has amended their request and now wish to leave the existing <br />FinaSer•ve sign in place. <br />Page -11- <br />