Laserfiche WebLink
Session 1612, Minutes Page 2 <br />March 21, 1994 <br /> <br />The 1993 cost was $25,200. (~BG pays for the Single ~t Re~ort. Approval <br />wasrec~eraed. <br /> <br />Purchase of ~ Refuse Ccrtainexs (#2). Bide were received for refuse du~p- <br />sters, lide and parts. MaC Enterprises is now the only c~L~any that manufac- <br />tures BMCO containers. Lid assemblies and hardware may be acquired f~u beth <br />cu~anies, but M~C was not able to get its bid in cn t~m~ for these items. <br />Prices__ are s~m~lar to the Cityms I~Ost recer~ ptlrd~3ses. <br /> <br /> ~MOO M~C <br />30 es. 11/2 cu.yd. ~ containers - c~..plete $ $ 6,840 <br />30 es. 3 cu.yd. ~MOD co~ - o-,-21ete 8,250 <br />30 ea. 3 cu.yd. roto mold lid ~-~.hlies - c~plete 3,450 <br />20 ea. 11/2 cu.yd. roto mold lid assemblies - o-,:,lete 2,000 <br />20 ea. 3 c~.yd. ~ 800 <br />300 es. 3/8" by 11/2" carriage bolts 24 <br />500 ea. non-locking nuts 15 <br />200 ea. 3/8" by 1" carriage bolts 16 <br /> <br />$6,305 $15,090 <br /> <br />Purchasing the containers f=~ PMC for $15,090 and lid assemblies <br />ware f~uu ~ for $6,305 was recumeema~a. To~l cost is $21,395, <br />freight. <br /> <br />COND3,7.'iONAL USE ~ - LOOP AI~/CMCTIIVE, 6300 DRYMAR BC~UIVARD <br /> <br />The city Manager concurred with the Plan C~,.,,L~gicn's recu~,endation to deny <br />an ~nt to tba autumobile repair conditional use for 6300 ~ which <br />would allow a building eag3ansi~n and ~aa~ticnal vehicles awaiting repair to <br />be parked outside. Mlile continuation of a business not conforming with the <br />goals and objectives of the ~ may be permitted, it would be damaging to <br />allow an expansion of that use. <br /> <br />Mr. Harvey Feldman, 9666 Olive, attorney for applicant Felix Fe3gelman, said <br />this auto repair business has prospered, and Mr. Fel~elman needs to expand <br />and be ellowed to park more than six cars cn the p~uperty. Mr. Feldman said <br />the applicant has invest_~9_ heavily in the business and bed to pay to renove <br />leaking tanks and correct other prc~lens left by the former occupant. He <br />said the building expansion would provide indoor parking for 10-12 more vehi- <br />cles, and additional outdoor parking s~aces were requ~__~9_. He suggested <br />that objections raised by Streetside Records were invalid. He asked Council <br />to approve the ~; if not the building expansion, t_hen at least the <br />additional outdoor parking. Otherwise, his client my go out of business. <br /> <br />Mrs. Schuman not_~9_ that the Plan Oam~dssicn's vote c~1 the original applica- <br />tion two years ago was split b~-~use there were serious concerns about wheth- <br />er to continue this type of use in that area. She felt Council reluctantly <br />approved the permit because the sits has been used for a~ive purposes <br /> <br /> <br />