Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />DECEMBER 3, 2007 <br />Keis asked if this was the biggest concern the Park property owners had. <br />The owners replied that it was. <br />Black also suggested that if the City is considering implementing a <br />business licensing system, that it should be City-wide and not just apply to <br />Ryan Industrial Park property owners. <br />Rossow reported that part of the problem is that the Park was developed <br />prior to zoning requirements for CUP's for outdoor storage. He also felt <br />that most of the existing CUP's are too specific and do not have the <br />needed flexibility to roll from one user to another. <br />Keis stated that he is hearing that the property owners would like some <br />flexibility, but noted that the City would like specifics. Keis felt that <br />without specifics, the City's conhol is limited. <br />Rossow agreed that there is not an easy answer. Rossow stated that he is <br />opposed to an IUP process. He indicated that he has rental property and <br />does not want to renegotiate an IUP with each new tenant. Rossow stated <br />that he would police his tenants. He felt there had to be some common <br />ground between the City and the Park owners. <br />Blesener noted that the City made one CUP flexible. Six months later the <br />property was sold and the new owner has outdoor storage from property <br />line to property line. <br />The City Administrator stated that he can understand the Park property <br />owners' desire for flexibility. He acknowledged the position of the <br />owners that the City should not care what is being stored on a property as <br />long as it is screened. The Administrator noted that fire codes must be <br />complied with. He indicated that the City has tried to work with property <br />owners on getting compliance with CUPS. The City is willing to work <br />with the property owners, but it has to be a two-way street. <br />Stanke asked what is happening on the Costanza property. The <br />Administrator reported on the code enforcement actions the City is taking <br />with this property and indicated that revocation is the next step. However, <br />the process is a long one. He also noted that this property is zoned PUD, <br />but subject to virtually the same regulations as the I-1-zoned properties. <br />Bill Griffith pointed out that with the moratorium in place, nothing can <br />happen on these properties. As long as the moratorium is in place, the <br />City will get no investment in these properties. <br />Blesener indicated that the City will have another workshop to discuss the <br />I-1 standards. Once modifications are drafted, they will be submitted to <br />