Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Nixt, Commissioners Rogers, Brauer, Hunt, and <br />Levine. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioners Cleveland and Van Scoy. <br /> <br />The public hearing was closed at 7:05 p.m. <br /> <br />Commission Business <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt expressed concern regarding the use of suspension as an enforcement tool and <br />stated if the City suspends a conditional or interim use permit for any length of time, the property <br />owner may have an obligation to suspend business operations during the period of suspension. <br />He stated he did not think it was practical to require them to suspend their business operation as <br />an interim means of enforcement and felt the City should be looking at more realistic <br />enforcement options short of suspension that give the property owner a reasonable opportunity to <br />cure the alleged violation. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Gladhill noted that the City has an abatement procedure in place and fines that <br />can be imposed. He added the suspension provision would be utilized in those rare cases where <br />there is a blatant violation that could harm the public and where administrative fines are not <br />working as a means of enforcing the terms of the permit. <br /> <br />Commissioner Levine asked if there was an issue that arose that prompted this discussion. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Gladhill replied there was a case in 2008 where one of the City's local <br />establishments had a clear violation, which was brought to a revocation hearing and would have <br />hurt their business. The City Council discussed the issue and determined that City Code does not <br />allow for suspension ~f a permit and the only remedy was to revoke the permit, thus requiring the <br />owner to go through the application process again; the City Council opined that suspension <br />seemed a more appropriate remedy in that situation. He added in this particular case, the owner <br />rectified the situation. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated he appreciated the stated purpose for the proposed suspension provision, <br />and asked whether the City does not have other means in place for dealing with a public safety <br />issue, short of going through a very time consuming and burdensome due process of law <br />proceeding. <br /> <br />. Associate Planner Gladhill replied that suspension of a permit does not represent the City's only <br />recourse, particularly in a case where there is a concern for public safety, health, and welfare. He <br />stated staff's opinion was that in some cases, revocation of the permit may be too harsh. <br /> <br />Commissioner Levine requested information regarding the process undertaken by the City in <br />dealing with violations, e.g., warnings given to the property owner. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Gladhill explained that in both subd. 8 and subd. 9, the Code talks about <br />needing to get findings from the property owner regarding the violation and the property owner is <br /> <br />Planning Commission/February 5, 2009 <br />Page 3 of 10 <br />