Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />f f _ \ YJ- s) <br />\ <br /> <br />HEARING <br />CITY REFUSE <br />COMMERCIAL <br />PERMIT <br />REVOKED <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />/ I&'{~ <br />1-' <br /> <br />",. ~ '(" :' .' <br /> <br />"./.. ,,:. '",.. '~ <br /> <br />20:8567 <br /> <br />with the street as proposed. He appreciated the rural atmosphere but <br />felt the City has a responsibility to provide all safety services to <br />a street be it private or public. <br /> <br />Councilwoman Lauber submitted in part that she was familiar with the <br />subject tract when it was before the Planning Commission and recalled <br />chat the residents were unanimous in their feeling for the preservation <br />of the rural atmosphere of Oakhursr Lane - that no other street has <br />such unique qualities - that the tract is well above the square foot <br />requirements for lots and if and when the tract is constructed it <br />would not be crowding any more people down at the cui de sac but at <br />the entrance at Colorado Boulevard. She then MOVED that Council finds <br />the development would not have a substantial impact on the environment <br />and that the tract be approved subject to all conditions. <br /> <br />Motion seconded by Councilman Saelid With the further comment that he <br />was also concerned about Lots I and 2 but did not like the idea of <br />forcing the widening. He sees this as one of the unique streets in <br />the city of which there are few and that in the event of a structural <br />fire the rig would have to be backed out and would present a temporary <br />hazard while being removed from the street - that in his opinion this <br />would be a small price to pay. <br /> <br />In response to a question the Fire Chief said he would have to confer <br />with the Fire Marshall as to what type of equipment would be sent to <br />this particular street in the event of a structural fire. <br /> <br />Councilman Helms responded to this by recalling an emergency situation <br />on his street which is also a cui de sac but about 15 or 20 feet wider <br />than the subject street _n he noted the difficult time the fire rig <br />had when answering a call for damage from high winds. <br /> <br />Mayor Scott then called for the roll call vote. <br /> <br />AYES: <br />NOES: <br />ABSENT: <br /> <br />Councilmen Gilb, Lauber, Saelid <br />Councilmen Helms, Scott <br />None <br /> <br />The City Attorney advised that the City Refuse Service Company had <br />not complied with the requirements of Section 6434.5 of the Municipal <br />Code in providing liability insurance in specified amounts as a pre- <br />requisite to receiving a permit to conduct commercial collection of <br />ref~se in the City. That on May 18, 1974 ar noon the insurance <br />supplied by said company was effectively cancelled and on said date <br />and time and p~rsuant to Section 6314.4 of the Municipal Code the <br />Chief of Police by written order temporarily suspended the petmit. <br />The contents of Section 6314 and 6314.3 of the Code were read in full <br />by the City Attorney setting forth grounds for revocation of a permit <br />and rhe requirement for holding this public hearing. He indicated <br />that no renewal of the liability insurance or substitute liability <br />insurance has been submitted to date. <br /> <br />Whereupon the hearing was declared open and no one desiring to be heard <br />the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION by Councilwoman Lauber, seconded by <br />Councilman Gilb and carried unanimously. It was further MOVED by <br />Councilwoman Lauber, seconded by Councilman Gilb and carried on roll <br />call vote as follows that the permit graored rhe City Refuse Service <br />Company for commercial rubbish pick up be REVOKED for faLlure to <br />maintain proper liability insurance in accordance with Section 6434.5 <br />of the Municipal Codeo <br /> <br />AYES: <br />NOES: <br />ABSENT: <br /> <br />Councilmen Gilb, Helms, Lauber, Saelid, Scott <br />None <br />None <br /> <br />6-4-74 <br /> <br />- 3 - <br />