Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> MINUTES <br /> CITY COUNCIL <br /> <br /> AUGUST Z5, 2010 <br /> Blesener pointed out that what is proposed and what is actually happening <br /> appear to be two different things. Blesener stated that he catmot support <br /> the request, and noted that the property has been a tremendous <br /> enforcement problem. Blesener suggested that Ms. Montreux meet with <br /> the City Administrator to see if there is some use that might be acceptable. <br /> The City Adminish~ator indicated that there may be possible options that <br /> can be explored. <br /> There was no one else present wishing to comment on this matter. <br /> Upon motion by Keis, seconded by McGraw, the public hearing was <br /> closed. <br /> Montreux asked if the PUD Permit for the auto hobbyist use was still in <br /> effect. The City Planner uzdicated that the residential use of the property <br /> has terminated. "the City did grant a PUD Permit for the non-commercial <br /> auto hobbyist with no outdoor storage would still be in effect provided the <br /> auto hobbyist still occupies the property. Montreux reported that he is still <br /> there. <br /> The City Administrator pointed out that Scott Heckel reported to him that <br /> the auto hobbyist would continue to occupy the property even if the PUD <br /> Permit amendment is approved. This is contrary to what Montreux <br /> indicated at the Planning Commission meeting. Blesener noted that there <br /> would be no room in the rear building for the trucking company if the auto <br /> hobbyist were utilizing that building. <br /> Mr. Keis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br /> RESOL UTION NO. 2010-8-193 -DENYING THE APPLICATION <br /> FOR AMENDMENT TO PUD PERMIT FOR RESIDENTIAL <br /> RENTAL OCCUPANCY OFAN EXISTING HOUSE AS WELL AS <br /> COMMERCIAL RENTAL OCCUPANCY OFOUT-BUILDINGS <br /> REQUESTED BYMARILYNMONTREUX FOR PROPERTY <br /> LOCATED AT 2968 RICE STREET BASED ON THE RESULTS OF <br /> THE PROPERTYINSPECTION CONDUCTED BY THE CITY <br /> ADMINISTRATOR AND CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, <br /> BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE <br /> PLAN DOES NOT GUILDE THIS PROPERTY FOR RESIDENTIAL <br /> USE, AND BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY <br /> CONDITIONS NOTED DURING INSPECTION WERE NOT WHAT <br /> HAS BEEN REPRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT <br /> 10 <br /> <br />