Agenda - Council - 01/18/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

o 10. 11. 12. 13. That ~on October 27, 1993, pursuant to Section 9.03.04 (Conditional Use Permits) of the~ Ramsey City Code, City Staff issued a letter m the Permit Holder ident/fying the C'~ violations and establishing a thirty (30) day time frame in which to remedy the vit)lations. That On November 9, 1993, City Staff inspected the site and no apparent progress had I~en made by the Permit Holder to correct the violations. That On December 6, 1993, City Staff inspected the Site and it was apparent that since ~ovember 9, 1993, the Permit Holder had removed some of the debris locate~ on the Site, however, a considerable amount of debris continues to remain on theiSite. That on December 6, 1993, City Staff issued a letter to the Permit Holder noting the expiza~on of the 30 day compliance time frame, the violations on the Site, and the schedt~ling of a public hearing on December 14, 1993 to consider revocation of the CUP p~suant to Section 9.03.04 of the City Code. That or3 December 14, 1993, the Ramsey City Council conducted the public hearing and that said public hearing was properly advertised and that the minutes of said public hearing are hereby incorporated by reference. That at the public hearing, a letter dated December 8, 1993, addressed to Sylvia Frolik ~City of Ramsey Zoning Administrator) from Karen Brown of Production Design:Products, Inc., at 14161 Basalt Street N.W. was received into the record. Said le[ter supported the possible revocation of the Permit Holder's CUP. The statemants of Karen Brown were supported by a letter from Robert Brown of Production Design Products, Inc. dated October 19, 1993, which identified acdvifi~s of the Permit Holder during the month of October, 1993. Both letters are incorpo~ted herein by reference. That at,the public hearing, Jerry Martin of Ah-So Company, 14021 Basalt St. N.W., t~estified to deteriorating conditions on the Permit Holder's Site and in support of the CUP revocation. That at .the public hearing, Douglas Hanson of ]4040 Azurite Street N.W. testified in supp.~rt of the Permit Holder's activities, noting that with the exception of Profluctx~n Design Products and Ah-So Company, the Site is appropriately located in an arm of other heavy industrial uses. That at the public hearing, the Permit Holder testified indicating a desire to conduct operations in conformance w/th the CUP and to that end, a plant m~nager has been employe~ to structure and manage plant operations accordingly. That the City received a leuer from the Permit Holder dated January 5, 1994 wkich is incorp.~>, rated herein by reference and which letter contains the following statements: a) Ttaat the revocation proceedings are not the result of a large public outcry, r~,garding/ts operation but rather the result of two neighboring business owners that do not desire to see its operation grow and expan& b) That w/th the City exercising some tolerance of conditions during this inlerim growth period, all affected parties (Permit Holder, City, neighboring Iql