Laserfiche WebLink
advised Mr. Hickman to find out all that would be required from the building <br />inspector. The next time he saw Mr. Hickman, Mr. Hickman presented copies of <br />P&Z minutes with those portions highlighted that reflect Commissioner Deemer, <br />and the Commission in general, were irritating Mr. Hickman. Councilmember Cox <br />stated that the issue was brought to Council's attention and he and Ms. Norris <br />were directed to meet with Mr. Hickman to work something out. Councilmember <br />Cox noted that P&Z minutes state that Commissioner Deemer was not acting <br />independent of the Commission in bringing the Plants and Things case up; if <br />that is so and other P&Z members drive by that property often, why was <br />Commissioner Deemer the only one to bring up the issue? P&Z met the day <br />construction started, March 19; how is it that Commissioner Deemer knew at that <br />point that the building was not up to code? A lot of irritation was imposed on <br />a person trying to do business, make a living, improve property and generate <br />tax dollars in Ramsey. There is no doubt that during the building inspector <br />transitional period, and in the future, substandard businesses will exist in <br />Ramsey but they serve the community and create jobs. There should be a set <br />standard that Council and P&Z agree to and follow. <br /> <br />Commissioner Shumway stated that Mr. Hickman has broken 6 laws in Ramsey; does <br />the City ignore that; if so, everybody else has to be treated the same way. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cox stated that Council directed he and Ms. Norris to meet with <br />Mr. Hickman to resolve the problem; Council was voted in by the people and <br />their decision was to give he and Ms. Norris the responsibility to resolve it <br />rather than have an irritated situation continue. The City Attorney's letter <br />also refers to the situation being 'after the fact'; apparently none of the <br />laws that were broken could be rectified after the fact. <br /> <br />Councilmember Schlueter stated Council has not made any firm decisions <br />regarding the Hickman case; Council is still at the point of determining <br />whether or not to allow for the infractions or have them corrected. <br /> <br />Chairman Peterson stated that it was P&Z's understanding that Councilmember Cox <br />and Ms. Norris were given the power and responsibility to work out a resolve to <br />Mr. Hickman's case. If the ordinances are not going to be enforced in this <br />case, then justification for that action should be documented. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hendriksen stated that in Mr. Hickman's original application for a <br />building permit, the proposed use was specified as retail. Mr. Hickman was <br />informed that the building would not meet requirements for retail sales use; <br />'retail' was crossed out and replaced with 'warehouse'; the building is being <br />used for retail sales. P&Z expended a lot of time preparing reasonable <br />development standards for businesses in Ramsey; if they are not reasonable, <br />they should be rewritten; if they are reasonable, they should be enforced. <br /> <br />Commissioner Deemer stated that if Hr. 11ickman would have supplied the required <br />documents with his building permit application (certificate of lot survey and <br />site plan), there probably wouldn't have been any problems. Those required <br />documents are all that Hr. Hickman was asked to provide at P&Z's October <br />meeting; at that point, P&Z and Mr. Hickman would then work out a time frame to <br />accomplish the requirements. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cox stated that it is his responsibility to listen to the <br /> EDC-PZ-Council/November 20, 1986 <br /> <br />Page 3 of 7 <br /> <br /> <br />