My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 03/22/1983
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
1983
>
Agenda - Council - 03/22/1983
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/15/2025 11:57:06 AM
Creation date
7/17/2006 8:08:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
03/22/1983
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
209
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
<br />Council Action: Your action will be to adopt the resolution <br />authorizing the transfer of funds. The following proposed motion <br />is hereby submitted for your consideration: <br /> <br />Motion by and seconded by to adopt <br />Resolution #83- authorizing the transfer of $1,407.58 <br />from General Fund 101 to 1979 Bond Fund ($990M) 552 regarding <br />the payment of the special assessment on Lot 6, Block 2, <br />Gorham Sandy Acres. Please refer to resolution file for <br />Resolution #83- <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting yes <br />Voting no <br /> <br />CASE #2: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE 1 CASE OF MR. AND MRS. HAROLD <br />PHELPS: <br /> <br />This case was erroneously placed on the February 22, 1983 Council agenda <br />and Council denied it at that meeting. It has been normal practice that <br />the party who is requesting a variance, conditional use permit, home <br />occupation permit, etc. be present or have his representative present at <br />the meeting. However, no one was present at the last meeting on the part <br />of the Phelps. <br /> <br />-The concern I have in this case is why the Council denied the request, as <br />it appears to me that we are not being consistent in our approach to grant- <br />ing this type of a variance. I asked the Building Official to submit a <br />memo on it and I am enclosing this memo as enclosure (D2-c). As you will <br />note, we have granted this type of request before and we have also refused <br />them. The Tom Halker request we.denied was a proper denial. The Phelps <br />request is entirely different however and I would recommend that we secure <br />a restrictive covenance which would become part of his deed and would pro- <br />hibit further subdivision of land until a City street was in place. <br /> <br />Council Action: Your action would be to reconsider the action you took at <br />your February 22, 1983 meeting. <br /> <br />CASE #3: INSTALLATION OF DRINKING FOUNTAIN AT THE WARMING HOUSE: <br /> <br />At the February 22, 1983 Council meeting, the City Council received a petition <br />from the children and adults requesting that a drinking fountain be installed <br />at the warming house at the Ramsey Elementary School. At that time, Council <br />requested that the public Works Superintendent look into the issue and report <br />back at the March 22, 1983 meeting. <br /> <br />Accordingly, enclosure (D2-d) contains a memo from the Public Works Super- <br />intendent in regards to the installation of a drinking fountain at the warm- <br />ing house. He points out that due to various things, at this time it would <br />be best to purchase a five gallon insulated cooler and provide a cup dis- <br />penser and paper cups. He states that this will be a letdown to the children <br />who signed the petition but due to the circumstances involved it is the best <br />alternative the City has. <br /> <br />/ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.