02-24-10 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 24, 2010 never followed that permit. Keis pointed out that they are now before the Council pointing out what other property owners are doing. Keis noted that at the December 16, 2009 meeting, the Council tabled action on the revocation until this evening and asked that Costanzo and Fasching meet with City staff within 30 days to work on the compliance issues for their property. "Phis was never done, and now it is February 24'x' and they are here asking that the City look at everyone else's property. Fasching continued with her review of the pictures of other properties in the area. She noted that one of the properties is the Public Works Garage that has a damaged fence. The City Administrator reported that someone recently drove into the Public Works fence and there are temporary repairs on the fence. Permanent repairs will be made when the frost is out of the ground. McGraw asked Costanzo and Fasching what they want the City to do. Tony Costanzo indicated that he has done everything that the City has asked him to do over the past 10 years. FIe indicated that he has met with the City Administ~•ators 5 or 6 times during that time period. The Administrator has tried to write him tickets, and these were dropped in court. Costanzo stated that they need to retain MN Asphalt as a renter and that MN Asphalt should be allowed to run their business and store their trucks on the property. Costanzo pointed out that the City has issued them a license. The City Administrator indicated that the City does not issue general business licenses, and no license has been issued to MN Asphalt. The City Administrator reported that the Code Enforcement Officer recently talked to MN Asphalt and informed them that their business was not a part of the PUD Permit which exists on this property. The Administrator noted that MN Asphalt could be able to utilize the building, but under the existing PUD Permit is not able to store outdoors. The Administrator indicated that the property owners can request a PUD Permit amendment, but noted that the current outdoor storage requirements are less flexible than those that existed when the cun•ent PUD Permit was approved. The Administrator pointed out that this issue was discussed with Ms. Fasching on several occasions. Last summer she did apply for a PIJD Permit amendment, but then decided W retain the existing PUD Permit. The Administrator again noted that without a PUD Amendment, MN Asphalt is not an approved outdoor storage user for this property. 3