Laserfiche WebLink
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, NOVEMBER 16, 1982 <br />8. ENGINEER°S REPORT: <br />A.— Keats Avenue Up'�Date- <br />Bohrer reported that the contractor has completed the list <br />of required work, as presented by the Engineer November 3. <br />Because of the weather,no additional work was started on <br />the final top coat of asphalt;to complete the contract, <br />The Engineer recommended approving the contractor's request <br />to extend the completion date of the contract to June 15, 1983. <br />If this is granted, he recommended that it be made clear <br />to the contractor that this is.the final extension and if <br />work is not completed by the date the�City will enforce the <br />penalties provided in the contract. Bohrer also noted that <br />the driveway work will be completed this week. A letter <br />to this effect has been sent to all affected property owners. <br />M/S/P Mottaz/Novak to extend the completion date of the Keats Avenue <br />Project to June 15, 1982, With the stipulation that all contracted <br />work will be completed by this date otherwise contract penalties <br />will be enforced. Carried 5-0. <br />9. ENRIGHT REZONING REQUEST: <br />Planning Commission member Bob Dreher informed the Council that <br />the area proposed for the house is very low and swampy. <br />--Dave Johnson, Conn -Co Shoes said he spoke with Mr. Enright and <br />that he indicated he would not attend the Council meeting and <br />was aware his request would be likely be denied. <br />--Whittaker - the house Mr. Enright proposes to move is on an <br />existing conforming parcel - why move it to a non -conforming <br />lot. <br />The Council then reviewed the Planning Commission recommendation <br />to -deny the rezoning and house moving permit. <br />M/S/P Eder/Novak to deny the rezoning and house moving request <br />of C. R. Enright,based on the recommendation of the ;planning <br />Commission,for the following reasons: <br />1. The rezoning to R-1 is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan <br />for use in Section 32. <br />2. The proposed R-h zoning would not be adjacent to any other <br />R-1 zone in the City, thereby, creating spot zoning. <br />3. The lot size would not meet the minimum requirement of 1 1/2A. <br />Carried 5-0. <br />10. DAVE JOHNSON - PLANNING IN SECTION 32: <br />Mr, Johnson apprised the Council that a group oS_property.•:Qwners;..in <br />Section 32 have been meeting to discuss the proposed Waste <br />Energy plant and its effect-on.the surrounding property owners <br />and their land -use. _He indicated: that;the.group-is satisified <br />with the access for the plant and have agreed this is the direction <br />they would like to see pursued. The group would favor an energy <br />park and if the City.is interested in this, they would be willing <br />to work with the Council in sharing ideas and developing plans <br />for the utilization of the property in the area. <br />--Mottaz - previewed a joint meeting between the City, County and <br />the consulting engineers for the plant regarding an energy park. <br />He indicated that the County is interested in getting involved <br />with this type of development and encouraged participation - <br />df-the-Section 32'property owners . <br />