10-28-09 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 28, 2009 Fasching indicated that she attended the July 9°i Planning Commission meeting. Fasching stated that she informed the Planning Commission that she was withdrawing her PUD Amendment application and would canply with the existing PIJD Permit on the property. The Planning Commission then gave her until November 30`x' to bring the property into compliance. "the City Administrator noted that the Planning Commission is an advisory group that makes recommendations to the City Council. I3e also noted that the minutes do not reflect that Fasching formally withdrew her application to amend the PUD Permit. "The Administrator noted that when Fasching did not appear at the July 22°`~ Council meeting, it created a dilemma for the Council. The Council denied the Amendment to the PiJD Permit, but indicated that the properly owner could appeal that decision at the next regular Council meeting, August 12, 2009. Fasching was informed both verbally and in writing of this. Blesener stated that he was willing to allow the property owner until November 30°i to get the property into compliance. He noted that the Council meets on December 16, 2009, and suggested that consideration of the revocation of PUD Permit be continued until that meeting. McGraw felt that it has been very difficult to get an understanding between the property owner and the Council, and there always seems to he a misunderstanding on the part of the property. McGraw felt that if there is an extension to November 30°i, he wanted to ensure that the property owner clearly understands the City's expectations. Blesener noted that the requirements of the PiJD Permit granted in 2000 were very specific. Blesener suggested that if the property owner has any questions, she meet with City staff to go over these requirements. Keis stated noted that there has been no progress in cleaning up the property this summer a~1d he did not believe that these circumstances would change. Keis stated that he was not willing to grant a~i extension. Schivone indicated that he would meet with City staff along with Maly Fasching to ensure that the property owner clearly understood what needed to be done. The City Attorney reported that the Council could continue the public hearing to its December 16`x' meeting. He pointed out that the Council has been very tolerant in working with property owners. The City Attorney felt the compliance issues were clearly spelled out in the staff reports, and suggested that the property owner clean up the property and resolve these outstanding issues. He noted that the property owner has indicated that she will do this, and suggested that, if tabled, there should be no confusion as to the deadline for compliance. ]1