My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 01/22/2002
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2002
>
Agenda - Council - 01/22/2002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/25/2025 11:02:45 AM
Creation date
9/4/2003 8:58:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
01/22/2002
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.
/
316
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
!1 <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br />.I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> <br />Director Frolik replied that that was before the property was placed in a moratorium. <br />Councilmember Anderson noted that the request is only for an interim use. Community <br />Development Director Frolik explained that the industrial zoning does allow for outside storage, <br />but on paved surface and it has to be enclosed. Councilmember Hendriksen replied that what is <br />being proposed is not consistent with what has been done in the past. Councilmember Anderson <br />stated that it would be better to delete finding #15. Councilmember Hendriksen replied that he <br />personally felt that the facts need to be stated as they are. If they feel that the use will not be <br />operated and maintained so as to be harmonious and appropriate and that it will change the <br />essential character of the area then aren't they saying that the use is inappropriate according to <br />today's ordinances. City Attorney Goodrich replied that if that is the case then the Council should <br />not be granting the permit. Councilmember Kurak stated that she wants to avoid having Kenko <br />spend a lot of money on the site to comply with current City Code only to have the City to buy <br />the property in the future. City Attorney Goodrich replied that if the Council were to grant the <br />permit as proposed they would not be requiring them to expand a lot of money. Councilmember <br />Kurak inquired as to whom would be responsible for acquiring the property if the City asks them <br />to spend more money on the site. Councilmember Hendriksen stated all of the things Ms. Kurak <br />brought up are justification for granting the permit and they may be enough justification to do so, <br />but those facts need to be recorded. City Attorney Goodrich replied that they are not legally <br />binding them to anything other than binding them to the permit. The City is not telling them that <br />the City will pay for anything, but it will be putting Kenko on notice that in the future the land <br />may be taken. Councilmember Kurak stated that she does not want'to demand that they invest a <br />lot of money into the property and then have to buy it back in three years. Councilmember <br />Hendriksen stated that one of the things that constantly happens is that once the City permits <br />something everybody else wants the same things. The City has a long history of trying to clean up <br />the businesses south of the property so there has to be some justification that sets this apart from <br />everyone else. City Attorney Goodrich stated that finding #11 is a new fact that has not been <br />evident in earlier cases. Councilmember Anderson inquired if the City were to deny the permit <br />because they don't think the open storage is appropriate even though it is a temporary use, will it <br />create any difficulties because Kenko does own the land. She also inquired if it would be possible <br />to negotiate another area. Councilmember Hendriksen replied that a businesses will chose the <br />least cost alternative. If the choice becomes building a facility that meets the requirements for a <br />greater cost or do the minimal amount of things somewhere else they will chose the minimal cost. <br />He questioned if the Council was willing to set the precedent or endure the rationale of the <br />inconsistency and write it down to make legal sense. Councilmember Anderson inquired if they <br />would be within their legal rights to deny the permit. City Attorney Goodrich replied yes, but <br />inquired as to what the Council would do if Kenko requested to build a permanent structure on <br />'the site. If that were to happen then the City would be in a dilemma because of finding #11. <br />Councilmember Kurak noted that the property is in a moratorium so they would not be able to <br />build on the site. City Attorney Goodrich replied that currently that is true, but the moratorium <br />will not be there permanently. Councilmember Hendriksen suggested that they could wait <br />through the moratorium and then officially map the right of way once more of the studies are. <br />completed. City Attorney Goodrich stated that if the Council leading towards denial then they <br />will have to redraf~ the language in the findings of fact. Mayor Gamec suggested findings to. <br />approve the permit and density the permit be brought back to the next City Council meeting for <br />consideration. <br /> <br />City Council/November 27, 2001 <br /> Page 11 of 22 <br /> <br />-219- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.