Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> MINUTES <br /> CITY COUNCIL <br /> MARCH 24, 2010 <br /> that needs to be done by March 31s~ and will setup the appropriate site <br /> inspections by that date. <br /> Based on the letter submitted by Ms. Pasching, the City Administrator <br /> recommended that the revocation process be discontinued. The <br /> Administrator noted that the property owner has made tremendous <br /> progressing in getting the property closer toward compliance. I-Ie <br /> suggested that if compliance is not achieved, the City can issue citations <br /> and/or begin the revocation process again. <br /> Montour indicated that he visited the site and agreed that progress has <br /> been made. He noted that without a PUD Permit amendment, the property <br /> owners will be held to complying with the existing PUD Permit. The City <br /> Administrator stated that that was correct. <br /> The City Administrator noted that in discussing the potential for a PUD <br /> Permit with the property owners, property boundaries were checked <br /> through the County's GIS system. from the G1S records, it appears that a <br /> portion of the parking for 3151 Country Drive is not on their property. <br /> Given this, some of the outdoor storage and parking relocation options that <br /> were being discussed were not workable. <br /> The City Administrator noted that there were comments made previously <br /> that the City put a lift station on the property without permission. "the <br /> City Administrator indicated that there is a sewer line running through the <br /> property, there is no lift station on this property. That sewer line is within <br /> a 10-foot easement that was granted in 1997. <br /> Montour asked the City Attorney what the best course of action is at this <br /> time given the property owners will not be seeking a PUD Permit <br /> amendment. Montour stated that he would like to give them some time to <br /> complete their property compliance work "I'he City Attorney replied that <br /> the Council can do nothing, issue citations, or revoke the PUD Permit. <br /> One other option would be to table the hearing giving the property owners <br /> a defined period of time to complete their work on the property before the <br /> Council takes up the revocation issue again. <br /> The Council had some discussions on the best course of action. The City <br /> Administrator reported that the property owners have been informed that if <br /> they identify new tenants for the property, they could apply for a PUD <br /> Permit amendment at that time. <br /> There was no one present from the general public wishing to comment on <br /> this matter. <br /> Upon motion by Keis, seconded by Boss, the public hearing was closed. <br /> ll <br /> <br />