CCMin_93Apr28 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~1 I MINUTES APRIL 28, 1993 PAGE 3 fi~r' iyy V or full payment for new goods and merchandise". She noted that in a telephone conversation with Mr. Mutschler he had informed her that they anticipate that initially 5% to 10% of the business would be from walk-in sales with the amount possibly increasing to 500. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the definition of secondhand store/secondhand goods, and the intended use of the premises by the proposed business owner. Bachman again stressed that the central issue is "is the use proposed a specifically listed use in the zoning code?". If council is of the opinion that it is not a specifically permitted use, the findings should indicate that, and state that it falls within the moratorium. He indicated another option would be to refer the matter back to staff to obtain further information or perhaps set conditions on the business defining what can or can not be done during the period of the moratorium. Bachman commented that the statute is not binding on council, city regulations may also be adopted, and that this is the purpose of the moratorium. Baldwin stated it is the sense of the council to agree with the zoning admininstrator's finding that this proposed use definitely is not a permitted use under the zoning code and, therefore, falls within the moratorium. Mr. Efron inquired about the findings to which Baldwin replied "these are our findings". Hoyt indicated that the findings will be formalized and presented at the next council meeting for council review and adoption. ASSESSMENT INTEREST RATE FOR 1993 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SET AT 6.5% Baldwin explained that at the April 14, 1993 council meeting council proposed adopting a 6.5% interest rate for assessment of the 1993 street improvement project. Ciernia moved that the interest rate be established at 6.50 over the ten year assessment period. Upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor thereof: Baldwin, Ciernia and Gibson Talbot, and the following voted against the same: Jacobs. Gehrz abstained. Motion carried. PROPOSED ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ALLOCATION OF BUILDING PERMIT FEES Baldwin explained that the allocation of building permit fees presently described in the zoning code addresess a system no longer in use and is in need of updating. The proposed ordinance will accomplish this need. The Plannning Commission held a public