Agenda - Council - 10/23/1978 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

IRe F.u ] ar Page 8 October ]0, :'\l ;1'I '~N ON ,)1 ,~hl;l 'IMPROVI'~qitTI' IIEARI NG It i.~; l]~e g(-ne'J'~l conce~sus of the Council to table any action on Green- l;~lul Ill lis t/1 and the ~mp]atted section in the SE¼ of Section 21, Township 32, l,~;~u?? 2.5 ,qnd nach ~Jrea present a petition for the specific streets they ~.,':~ ~t imiux~ved. I ll~},II! (~(7(iIJI)A'I'ION PI~/¥11T; CASE OF Igl LLI_&M EASLEY Mr. Willi:un Easley was present to discuss his request for a home occupation pc~rmit:. Ilo wishes to sell and service surveying equipment. IJe stated he is dc,;~l lng with a person now for space in the industrial area, and hopes lo move']~i s ])u~ iness thei'e fn about a year. Also he stated it would be con- lui~ed ~dx)]Jy Jn his ho;ne at present and would he ne change in tlte appeaT'- :,:;~-e ~:f the principal structure. No sJ,~n would be posted advertising his b~,,i~x~ss. 'l]mre would be no additlonal traffic. Motion by Councilman Gamec and seconded by Councilman Reimann to grant Mr. Wi]li~mi Eas]ey a home occupation permit for the sale' and servicing of sur- vc.~yi~L~; eqt~ii)ment for a one year per~od and contained Mlotly in his principal si rucl~re m~d gura~ge and tJ~ere will be no signs posted. 5 ayes Motion carried Mayor Cox approved Councilman b~ller approved Councilman Reimann approved Councilman Mickelson approved, Councilman Gamec approved Rt~ZON'ING tiF~QUEST; CASE OF FRED AP&~STRONG- Motion by Councilman Mickelson and'seconded by CotmcilmanMuller to prepare finding of fact adopting an amendment to the zoning ordinance to grant Mr. Fred Armstrong his request and same finding of fact be presented at the October 23, 1978 regular Council meeting. 5 ayes Motion carried Mayor Cox approved Councilman Muller approved Councilman Reimann approved Councilman Mickelsonapproved Councilman Gamec approved FAII]~ BAPTIST CHURCH; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Mr. Jeff Carson, attorney for the Faith Baptist Church, was present to discuss with the Council their contention that a church should be a per- mitted use in an R-1 zone. They are objecting to #5, #8, #13, #15, and #18 of the finding of fact.