Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Commissioner Brauer suggested the language in subd. 8 be revised to state that the Council shall <br />have "up to" 30 consecutive days to suspend a conditional use permit, and to revise subd. 8(a) to <br />state that the parcel owner shall be given a "minimum of' 30 days to submit a written response to <br />the notice." He stated this would give staff some flexibility in remedying a violation. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated in his opinion, suspension is not the right answer and felt that the <br />language contained in the revocation provision could be tweaked to essentially provide the same <br />outcome. He added if the City were at a point where it is considering suspension, there is a <br />serious violation that has occurred; the City would not want to be arbitrary and capricious <br />without good cause. He suggested dropping the suspension concept all together because it puts a <br />business in an intractable position. He felt it was more appropriate to give the City increased <br />flexibility to enhance the cure period prior to revocation; if a property owner who has a violation <br />that would have warranted suspension, the City can choose to start a revocation proceeding, hold <br />a public hearing, and give the Council flexibility to expand its cure, assuming the property owner <br />is diligent in curing the violation. He asked if the 30 days provided in subd. 8 is always <br />appropriate because this period of time may be inadequately short in some instances or too long <br />in others, and felt some flexibility should be built into this provision. He added it would be <br />helpful to have guidance from the City Attorney on this issue. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Miller stated it appears the Planning Commission is looking <br />for a better defined due process procedure for the revocation process along with more clearly <br />defined timelines for revocation. <br /> <br />Commissioner Levine concurred and stated if the City is given more flexibility to react quickly to <br />a violation, then the suspension issue goes away. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated subd. 8( c) requires the Council to have a majority vote and if the Council <br />fails to revoke or continue the permit, for whatever reason, this provision requires the Council to <br />take action by a majority vote. He stated the City does not want to lock itself into a situation <br />where it cannot get this to happen, i.e., it cannot get the required votes, and suggested that the <br />voting level not be specified in this provision. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Gladhill stated it is staffs intention that most violations would be handled <br />through abatement and code enforcement activities and staff would not want to shut down a <br />business. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt suggested the Planning Commission continue the public hearing on this matter <br />to the next meeting and direct staff to redraft the Code to modify the revocation provision as <br />earlier discussed and in lieu of that, eliminating proposed Subd. 9 "Suspension of Conditional <br />Use Permits." <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Levine, seconded by Commissioner Hunt, to continue the public <br />hearing on this matter to the next meeting and directing staff to redraft Chapter 9.03 <br /> <br />Planning CommissionlFebruary 5, 2009 <br />Page 5 of 10 <br />