Laserfiche WebLink
city Council <br />June 2?, 1954 <br />.. <br />Schletty 'hods <br />(Cont.) <br />Ct ut inf Land <br />Fillip? <br />4, ;each <br />Item '!o. 9 <br />°.1 SOLUTI ^N NO. 84 -5 -222 — ',ITHHOLDING THE <br />ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMITS AND FILL <br />PF.R(ITS IN SC'ILE'PTY WOODS FOR A °23IOD OF <br />60 DAYS OR !!NTIL S'TCU TIIIE AS T }: 'CITY 9AS <br />RECEIVED A CLARIFICATION ON THE OUTLOT ISSUE 7"..o'.r 7.1E <br />CITY ATTORNEY <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by ''rs. Scalze. <br />Ayes (5) Ranson, Scalze, "ardini, Forsberg, Fahey. <br />'!ayes (0). <br />Resolution declared adopted. <br />This resolution appears in '. esolution ook ':o. 11, Page _O <br />?Tr. Current asked how the ordinance applied pith regard to plats Navin; <br />'to be presented to the Planning Com:nission. '!r. "anson renli.ed that <br />if a lot is purchased and a person wishes to build on it, the matter <br />would not have to go before the Planning Commission or Council if <br />there was no variance involved. <br />"r. Current slated that a tract of land is d'.Tforent fro• a lot and <br />stated that the ordinance r'.oes differentiate between the two. Current <br />stated that anything other than a platted lot rust go before the <br />°fanning Commission and Council. <br />r. Uanson stated that this would have to be re`erred to the City <br />Attorney. <br />"r. Pinson stated that this was a mute point as the City has restricted <br />the `,ui.ldnhility in :chletty "nods. <br />Pick Collova appeared before the Council requesting a fill irer,:t for <br />the Stumpf property fn order to fill around a tennis court. "r. Collova <br />reported that the fence around the court is eroding away and the <br />concrete is now exposed. "r. Collova needs a perrnir of up to 210 yards <br />of fill. <br />''r. 'orsberg pointed out that a lot more than 200 yards of f:11 has <br />been dumped on the property. ':r. Collova stated that there are <br />people who have been dumping on the property even though he put. up <br />no dumping signs. <br />Ttr. !tanson felt that the Engineer and Building inspector should make <br />a recommendation on this. `+r. Fahey agreed that this matter should <br />not have been on the agenda before it was reviewed by the Building <br />Inspector. <br />'tr. Forsberg introduced the following resolution and roved its adoption: <br />