My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/07/2003
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2003
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/07/2003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 9:31:35 AM
Creation date
8/4/2003 3:28:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
08/07/2003
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
201
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
Community Development Director Frolik noted that there were no TIF requirements included in <br />the conditional use permit. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec questioned why St. Paul Terminals was not notified of the area being identified for <br />redeveloped. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Frolik explained that the EDA has only had general <br />discussions on the issue. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated that it is an area the City has been trying to clean up for some time and it <br />seems as if St. Paul Terminals has not followed through on some of their responsibilities. <br /> <br />Mr. Martinson stated that St. Paul Terminals is not in the real estate development business. They <br />are not opposed to redevelopment of the property and without the conditional use permit they <br />cannot operate as a recycling business so they are then working as real estate developers. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated that there have been problems in the area for a long time and how long <br />should they allow that to happen. He inquired if the conditional use permit was extended would <br />the things be done as required by the permit. <br /> <br />Mr. Martinson replied that one of the reasons the fence has not been completed is because if they <br />are able to expand their facility the fence would have to be removed. He did not believe that <br />there was a down side to the City if they were to extend the permit for a short term. The City <br />could require that the facility be converted into a recycling facility by a specific date or the permit <br />would be terminated. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak stated that there were promises made by Mr. Shot and there were <br />agreements made under much hesitation by the Council. The City gave them the opportunity and <br />extended the permit already twice. She felt that the good intentions were now gone and for <br />whatever reason St. Paul Terminals did not come forward. <br /> <br />Mr. Martinson replied that last year if some of the discussions did not occur regarding the <br />expansion of the facility they may not have been in the position. The economics did play a part <br />in this as well, but Mr. Shot has sold a couple of his other properties in order to raise money and <br />he is prepared to do something with the site. He would not be willing to accept the fact that they <br />are totally at fault. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich stated that Mr. Martinson has indicated that. fundamental fairness should <br />dictate the extension, and inquired if Mr. Martinson was referring to the late notice they received <br />pertaining to the Planning Commission meeting and if so was there anything he would have <br />presented to the Planning Commission that he had not presented to the City Council. <br /> <br />Mr. Martinson replied that he was unable to answer that because he was not present for the <br />discussion at the Planning Commission meeting. <br /> <br />City Council/July 8, 2003 <br />Page 21 of 30 <br /> <br />P81 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.