Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> MINUTES <br /> CITY COUNCIL <br /> FEBRUARY 24, 2010 <br /> with the existing PUD Permit, but again noted that the permit is specific to <br /> roofing and electrical equipment. <br /> The City Administrator indicated that CUP and PUD Permits approved in <br /> the late 1990's, early 2000's were very specific and did not allow <br /> flexibility as to type of business use. The new outdoor storage code that <br /> was adopted tries to provide some flexibility, but along with that come <br /> some additional conditions related to outdoor storage. The Administrator <br /> indicated that the Costanzo/Fasching property is additionally challenging <br /> given the configuration of the property as well as building location. <br /> Costanzo indicated that the City just recently asked for doors on the lean- <br /> to building. Keis pointed out that the 1999 planning report recommends <br /> the doors. Costanzo indicated that the City Administrator contacted them <br /> last year and told them to bring in $300 for a PUD Permit and said <br /> everything would be fine. Costanzo also stated that the 1999 report <br /> addressed another business on this property, a frame shop. <br /> The City Administrator reviewed the approved site plan for the property <br /> which coincides with the 1999 report and PUD Permit. Costanzo <br /> indicated that City staff is using this site plan against them and indicated <br /> that it was never approved. The City turned down the frame shop and that <br /> is where that site plan came from. Costanzo again indicated that the City <br /> Administrator called them a year or two ago and said bring in $300 to pay <br /> for a PUD Permit. The City Administrator reported that the $300 was a <br /> discounted escrow deposit for the processing of an application to amend <br /> the existing PUD Permit that was processed last year. <br /> Costanzo stated that the City has to figure out who can go in on his <br /> property and indicated that he wants to keep MN Asphalt. Keis pointed <br /> out that this discussion started last year, the City has granted two <br /> extensions of the consideration of revocation of the existing PUD Permit, <br /> and Mr. Costanzo is just now appearing before the Council. Costanzo <br /> indicated that he has a lot of money and work invested in this property. <br /> He indicated that other properties have the same type of storage that he is <br /> being told he cannot have. Costanzo stated that he needs a little more time <br /> to finish the outstanding items, and indicated that he wants to keep MN <br /> Asphalt as a renter. <br /> The City Administrator indicated that the question for the Council this <br /> evening is to either act on the revocation or provide more time to work <br /> toward a solution. He noted that the property owner has made dramatic <br /> progress towards compliance. However, in order to keep MN Asphalt as a <br /> renter, it is necessary to amend the PUD Permit. The Administrator <br /> reported that he has met with Ms. Fasching three times over the past year, <br /> acid once with her attorney present, on just this issue. <br /> 7 <br /> <br />