Laserfiche WebLink
City Council meeting of February 2, 1998 <br />Page 5 <br />aerial and topo maps of the area, and touched briefly on platting of the land. Adjacent <br />property owners commented as follows: John Thommes stated that he did not want the <br />same situation being experienced by Mr. Lowell on 140th Street. Victor Lametti stated <br />that the proposed residential use of the property to his south was the most "opposing use" <br />of property as a neighbor. He cited potential problems with long hours of operation, <br />noise from the site, and the possible security problems with adjacent residents. He stated <br />that Lametti and Sons does not intend to limit the use of their property because of the <br />development. <br />Goiffon made motion, Leroux seconded, to approve rezoning of the property from <br />agriculture to single family unit, and directing the City Attorney to draft an ordinance <br />change, along with Findings of Fact, for presentation to the City Council at a later date. <br />All aye. Motion Carried. <br />DRAINAGE PROBLEM (16355 ELMCREST AVENUE) <br />Mr. Joe Canine, property owner of 16355 Elmcrest Avenue, has been experiencing <br />drainage problems. <br />Miron made motion, Barnes seconded, directing the City Administrator to schedule a <br />meeting with interested parties in an effort to resolve the drainage problem at 16355 <br />Elmcrest Avenue. <br />All aye. Motion Carried. <br />Because of the presence of the City Engineer, and to limit the amount of general dollars <br />spent, Councilmember Barnes felt it important that meetings be kept to one (1) event. <br />Barnes made motion, Leroux seconded, that discussion of basement floor elevation <br />requirements be placed on the agenda for the meeting of February 17, 1998. <br />All aye. Motion Carried. <br />FALSE ALARM FEES <br />The Council considered a letter from the Hugo Volunteer Fire Department recommending <br />that the City charge property owners for repeated false alarms to their property. The <br />Department recommends that the first and second false alarms be responded to at no cost, <br />but after the second alarm, property owners would be warned that future false alarms <br />would be charged for, based on the equipment responding to the scene. Furthermore, the <br />