Agenda - Council - 12/10/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-158- Councilmember introduced the following resolution, and moved for its adoption: RESOLUTION #02-12- A RESOLUTION TO WAIVE TIlE 10-DAY INTERVAL REQUIREMENT BETWEEN PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL ACTION ON A REQUEST FOR AN INTERI3~I USE PERMIT FROM TODD BIALON OF E-Z AUTO SALES, INC. WIJ~EREAS, Section 9.03.04A (Interim Use Permits) of the City Code states that the procedure for processing Interim Use Permits shall be the same as that used' for Conditional Use permits; and WHEREAS, Section 9.03.04 (Conditional Use Permits) of the City Code states that a request for a permit shall not be presented to the City Council any sooner than ten (10) days following the action of the Planning Commission;. and WHEREAS, Todd Bialon of E-Z Auto Sales, _[nc., hereinafter referred to as "Permittee", properly applied to the City of Ramsey (the "City") on November 8, 2002, for an Interim Use Permit ("Permit") to operate a motor vehicle sales lot on an unimproved surface for an interim period of time on the property generally known as 7751-Hwy. #10 N.W. WHEREAS, State Statue 15.99 requires municipalities to render a decision on land use requests within sixty (60) days of the date of application; in the Applicants case, the sixty (60) day period terminates on January 7, 2003. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission met on December 5, 2002, conducted a public heating and recommended that the City Council approve the request for an Interim Use Permit; and ' WHEREAS, the regular meetin~ dates of the City Council in December are the ! 0t~ and the 24; City Council action on the 10 wOuld conflict with the 10 day interval rule required between Planning Commission and City Council action; the meeting on the 24~' has been cancelled due to the Christmas holiday; and the next available City Council meeting is on January 14, 2003, which is beyond the January 7, 2003, 60 day decision timeframe; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute gives cities the ability to impose a maximum 60 day extension to the 60 day rule provided the Applicant is notified in writing of the reason for the extension; and' WI:IE, REAS, the Applicant filed the application for an Interim Use Permit with the City in accordance with established deadlines and anticipated a decision by the end of'December in accordance with-published schedules; and WHEREAS, the decision of the City Council to meet once in the month of December creates a hardship for the Applicant, who was anticipating commencing business operations in early January, 2003; and WHEREAS, the decision of the City Council to have one meeting in the month of December, versus the standard two meetings, may be considered insufficient reason for imposing a 60 day extension to the 60 day decision rule. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I