CC 12-09-1974 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~linutes of Council Heeting Decemoe r 9, 1974 Page five Q. How did Mi". Ritter operate before? A. From his home at 2800 Haml ine Avenue. Q. What is your dally routine? A. About 90% of my time is taking messages from accounts ( I.e. N.S.P. ) giving locations, etc. Q. Are you an officer of the Ritter Company? A. No. I'm an Independent contractor. Q. How are drivers paid? You said you make up the payroll. A. They are self-employed - paid on commission - no withholding etc. Accounts pay Ritter Ditching Co, and he, In turn, pays the drivers; commission is based on their investment In their units. Q. Why Is the commission based on the trucks? A. Sollie own 100%; some 1/3 ; each driver has a certain percent investment In his truck. . Q. Who owns the other percent? A. Mr. R i tte r . Wingert moved that based on testimony heard tonight and at the Publ ic Hearing, the Counc II deny the applicatLon by Ver II e Ne I son for a Special Use Permit to operate a home occupation, because It does not meet "home occupation" as defined by Ordinance No. 99, In that this occupation involves many of the operations of the Ritter Ditching busi- ness which has a potential of generating truck traffic too excessive for a residential area. Motion was seconded by Crichton. Motion did I not carry (Wingert voting I n favor; Olmen voting In opposition). Motion requires maJority of fu I i Counc II to pass. Council referred matter to Publ ic Safety Committee for recommendations to the Counc i I . Counc i I continued further action to the next Council meeting when entire Council Is expected to be present. I t was noted by Wingert that this operation has already had a noticeable affect on the neighborhood and asked for a show of hands of those present who oppose the Issuance of the Permit <about 20 hands were counted), Lynden requested that those present, interested In this case, sign a paper Indicating whethe r t hey are In favor of, or opposed to, the issuance of the Special Use Permit. (A paper was circulated for this pu rpose. About 26 persons signed in opposition; none I n favor.) (Ten minute recess) Case No. 74-37 S ecial Use Permit - John McClun Wingert referred Council to the lanning Commission Minutes of Decem- ber 3, 1974, reporting that the Planning Commission considers this occupation as one customarily considered appropriate for a home, occu- pation as defined by Ord. 99, and moved, seconded by Olmen, that the Counc i I approve Issuance of the Special Use Permit to operate a law off I ce at 4326 Nort h Sne I Ii ng Avenue. Motion carried unanimous.ly. Annual Buildlnq Officials' Seminar Wingert moved, seconded by Olmen, that the Council approve Larry Squ I res' attendance at a cost of $190.00 ($40.00 - seminar, plus $50.00 per da y for three days), at the Annual Bu i I ding Of f i cia I s I Seminar at Radisson South on January 6, 7 and 8, 1975. Motion carried unanimously. . Ca se No. 73 -4 9 , Blue Fo:, Inn - Request for Release of LandscaRe Bond Wingert referred Council to Squ ires' memo of December 5, 1974, and after rev lew of the severa I pend i ng Items, Wingert moved, seconded by Olmen, that the Counci I deny rea I ea se of the landscape bond at th is time. Motion carried unan imous I y. Wingert noted that the bu I I ding, as constructed, does not conform to the approved plans - windows have not been incorporated across front of bui'dlng, ctS indicated. Cr i c hton ask,ed if Certificate of Occupancy has been Issued; if not, should occupancy be allowed at this point of construction? After discussion, MrNlesh was requested to ask Mr. Goldberg to come to an early Council meeting to explain the deviations from plans which were the basi s for the Bu II ding Pe rm It. McNlesh was also requested to -5-