My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
1974.02.19 CC Minutes
Hugo
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
1974 CC Minutes
>
1974.02.19 CC Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/26/2017 1:45:08 PM
Creation date
9/28/2015 2:34:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
2/19/1974
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
FEBRUARY 19, 1974 3 5 <br /> Motion made by Lease, and seconded to deny the preliminary plans of <br /> Oak Vista Estates Subdivision for the following reasons: <br /> 1 . There is a completely different layout than at the public hearing <br /> 2. The city engineer does not have all the drainage easements & drainage <br /> plans. <br /> 3. The cul-de-sac shoud be only 600 feet according to ordinance. <br /> Motion carried. Bruce Folz appeared on behalf of Oak Vista Estates. <br /> Vern Peloquin appeared and stated the person who was hired to do his <br /> surveying is hospitalized, and the matter will be delayed a while <br /> longer. <br /> Motion made by LaValle, seconded by Leroux to table the Minor Sub- <br /> division of Vern Peloquin until the meeting of March 4, 1974. Motion <br /> carried. <br /> Mr. Richard Bury of the Bur-Lar Mining Co. appeared regarding his <br /> mining permit renewal. It was noted that his inspection fee had been <br /> $300.00 and $264.20 and been used in attorney and engineering fees, <br /> leaving a credit balance of $35.80. The planning commission had recom- <br /> mended that the permit be renewed with the same conditions as 1973, <br /> including the :$300.00 inspection fee, which is returnable if unused. <br /> Motion made by Martin, seconded by Leroux to ren-ewBur_-Lar Mining <br /> Permit with the same conditions as 1973. Motion carried. <br /> Tom LaValle's Mining Permit then came up for review. Motion made by <br /> Lease, seconded by Leroux to renew Tom I,aValle's Mining Permit for <br /> 1974 with the same provisions as 1973, with the added condition that <br /> the 1000 foot and 500 foot areas be kept free of water during the <br /> spring and that the 1000 foot area be filled to specified grade no <br /> later than July 1 , 1974. At that point Marvin LaValle questioned the <br /> high inspection fees, as not oneha,lf had been used last year. <br /> Motion made by Lease, seconded by Leroux to amend previous motion to <br /> read renew Tom LaValle's Mining Permit for 1974 with the same pro- <br /> visions as 1973, except the inspection fee be $310.00 rather than <br /> $500.00, with the added condition that the 1000 foot and 500 foot <br /> areas be kept free of water during the spring and that the 1000 foot <br /> area be filled to specified grade no later than July 1 , 1974. Crever, <br /> Leroux, Lease, Martin for LaValle abstained. Motion carried. <br /> Recess called at 8:35 P14. Called back to order at 8:45 PM. <br /> Building Inspector Tom Crever appeared to report on the status of <br /> Bob Ricci' s saloon with regard to the property line, and the new <br /> sign he has put up. He stated the sign had been put up without a <br /> permit, and the structure's front entrance was approximately 20 feet <br /> from the property line. Mr. Ricci's original plans did not show the <br /> front entrance as it now exists. <br /> Motion made by Lease and seconded to have attorney Johnson review <br /> the situation and give council a recommendation at the next meeting. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> The building inspector will also inform the owners of the Pioneer <br /> Club they should set their building plans before the planning com- <br /> mission. <br /> Crever also reported that Don Tauer had made a rental apartment in <br /> his basement, and he felt there was a violation of Oneka Ordinance # 1 <br /> and possibly a violation of the City Ordinance # 108. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.