My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-10-08 Council Workshop Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2008
>
01-10-08 Council Workshop Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 1:15:53 PM
Creation date
3/25/2008 1:58:08 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JANUARY 10, 2008 <br />to the citations, the City will then start action to revoke the CUP. Allan <br />agreed with this approach. <br />Keis noted that the CUP runs with the land, while the IUP was specific to <br />each business. Allan noted that the CUP runs with the land as long as the <br />use remains the same. If the property is sold or leased to a different type <br />of use, the existing CUP lapses and a new CUP must be applied for. <br />Duray stated that he agreed with Blesener's position. <br />Blesener felt that it would not be an undue burden on a property owner to <br />comply with the conditions of the CUP that were agreed to. If the <br />business expands beyond the limits of the property, it may be beneficial <br />for the property owner to find a new location. <br />Montour noted that any changes to the I-1 District will apply to all I-1 <br />zoned properties. <br />Roger Stanke, Ryan Industrial Park property owner, asked how the City <br />would handle the two properties in Ryan that are zoned PUD. Blesener <br />replied that these properties would have PUD Permits and would be <br />handled no differently from the properties with CUPS. <br />Montour noted that the City expends a lot of valuable taxpayer resources <br />trying to achieve compliance with CUPs in Ryan Industrial Park. Montour <br />suggested an outdoor storage license fee or some other mechanism to try <br />to recover these expenses. Knudsen stated that he would prefer to see the <br />property owners who are not abiding by the rules pay these costs. <br />The City Administrator suggested that it may be possible to establish <br />administrative fines to recover these costs. The City Planner thought that <br />there was no statutory authority to impose administrative fines of this <br />nature, although some cities are doing it. The City Planner recommended <br />that the Council obtain the City Attorney's opinion on the administrative <br />fine issue. <br />Barraclough suggested that tougher enforcement on the front end may <br />result in reduced long-term costs. <br />The City Administrator noted that enforcement takes a long time. The <br />Code Enforcement Officer pointed out that once citations are issued it can <br />be up to six months before the matter is scheduled on the court calendar. <br />Keis agreed that enforcement is a long, drawn-out process. <br />Duray asked if there was any way to require property owners to come in <br />once per year for a plan review to ensure that compliance is met and <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.