Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />MAY 11, 1999 <br />further reported that the property owners know the City is serious in the <br />enforcement it wants to do in the Park, and a deadline of June 30`1' was <br />given to property owners to apply for CUP's in order to get their sites into <br />compliance. After that deadline, citations will be issued to properties in <br />violation. <br />Mursko reported on the CUP applications received to date, pointing out <br />that that the word is spreading through the Park and most property owners <br />want to cooperate. Mursko also felt that when the CUP applications are <br />processed, the City should attempt to get each property up to Code as part <br />of that review process. <br />The Administrator noted that the City may have to extend the June 30`h <br />deadline given that the City has delayed the process somewhat. <br />The Council began a review ofMursko's April 29`h memo which outlines <br />the issues in the Park. The first issue is that of parking and storage area <br />surfacing materials. Mursko pointed out that employee and customer <br />parking areas are to be paved with, but not limited to, asphalt, bituminous, <br />or concrete in order to control dust and drainage. The Administrator <br />pointed out from the code violations grid which Mursko developed that <br />most properties have employee and customer parking areas blacktopped. <br />Morelan indicated that he was not opposed to exterior storage areas being <br />surfaced with Class V. Pedersen asked about Frattalone's exterior storage <br />areas. <br />Mursko reported that the Frattalone Excavating property has paved <br />employee and customer parking areas while the exterior storage areas are <br />surfaced with Class V. Frattalone has a 1981 CUP which allowed the <br />exterior storage areas to be surfaced with Class V and allowed exterior <br />storage as long as it was screened and landscaped, which it is. <br />Pedersen asked about exterior storage in the front yard pointing out that <br />while it may make sense to have a required front yard in a residential area, <br />it may not in an Industrial or I -P District. <br />Fahey suggested that the City may need to be flexible with some parcels <br />depending on their circumstances. Fahey noted that there are some parcels <br />without rear yards. <br />Mursko noted that the Code allows employee and customer parking in <br />front of buildings. However, required front yards are to be landscaped and <br />exterior storage is not allowed in front yards. Exterior storage in the rear <br />and side yards are required to be 100% screened. <br />PAGE 19 <br />