07-22-09 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL JULY 22, 2009 The City Planner reported that the property, owned by Carl Costanzo and Mary Pasching, is not in compliance with its original PUD Permit and there are a number of code enforcement issues with this site. Application was made for a revised PIJD Permit with the applicant requesting outdoor storage in the front of the property beyond the front building line. "I'he Planning Conunission did not support this request, and recommended approval of a revised PUD Permit requiring compliance with the revised outdoor storage regulations. The Planner indicated that at the Planning Commission meeting the applicant was not sure whether to pursue the new PUD Permit or to agree to comply with the existing PUD Permit for this property. The Planner noted that there are a number of compliance issues related to the existing PUD Permit which may be difficult to comply with McGraw asked about the differences in the site plan governing the existing PUD Permit and the proposed PUD Permit. The City Administrator noted That the existing PUD Permit is specific to the types of materials that can be stored on the property. Under the existing PUD Permit, the property owner will either have to require that the asphalt tenant store its materials indoors or the asphalt company will have to vacate the property. An additional difference is that the property owner is requesting outdoor storage in beyond the front building line under the proposed PUD Permit request. Blesener noted that the Planning Commission approved a revised PUD Permit which did not include outdoor storage in the front yard, requiring compliance with the outdoor storage standards in the Toning Code. Blesener pointed out that at the Planning Commission Mary Fasching indicated that their reason for requesting a revised PUD Permit was to get outdoor storage in front of the building. The City Administrator indicated that it was his opinion that the property owner made application for a revised PIJD Permit given a pending court action relative to code enforcement issues on the property. The Administrator reported that wider either scenario, complying with their cuizent PUD Permit or complying with a revised PUD Permit reflective of the updated Code requirements, the property owner will have some problems. fhe Council discussed the difficulty in acting on this matter given that the property owner is not present. The City Planner noted that the Planning Commission action was intended to give the property owner a choice of either complying with their current PUD Permit or complying with a revised I'UD Permit that met the new Code requirements. "Fhere was no one present ft~om the general public wishing to comment on this matter. 4