Laserfiche WebLink
~s. Noz£is stated that City Code regarding subdivisices does not specify a <br />minimun number of accesses zequi£ed to ~ plats; she amd the Plannin~ and <br />Zoning Omm~ssion are requesting direction f~om Council regarding whether <br />multiple acoesses will he £equired in the future. <br /> <br />Mayor Reimann stated that Ms. Norris and the Planning and Zoning C~ssi~ <br />should discuss the issue and m~ke a reo0~mendation to City Council. <br /> <br />Case ~16.. Discuss Plants And ~inqs: <br />Ms. Norris stated that it was agreed by Council/P&Z/EDC that Councilmember <br />Cox and herself would meet with Mr. Hickman to resolve concerns regarding <br />operations and the recent oonstruction of an accessory structure at Plants <br />and ~hings. A draft of the development permit is provided that addresses <br />s~me of the ooncerns. Ms. Norris stated that P&Z is not satisfied with the <br />development permit as it does not address exterior finish, parking area, <br />loading area and oertified site plan. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cox stated that he sees by the minutes that EDC and Ms. <br />Norris had a discussion regarding Plants and Things. Plants and Things is <br />no longer an issue to be discussed with P&Z and EDC as Council took it upon <br />themselves to handle the matter. Councilmember COx noted that there are no <br />retail operations being carried on in the accessory structure; the <br />structure is being used for storage and display area. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich inquired if Council is going to require an escrow for the <br />blacktopping. <br /> <br />Counciln~mber Cox stated that he feels it would not be appropriate to <br />require an escrow as the requirements are being imposed after the fact. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmsmber Sorteberg and seconded by Councilmember Pearson to <br />approve the draft development permit beNeen the City of Ramsey and Plants <br />and Things presented at the January 27, 1987 council meeting. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Reimann, Councilm~mbers Sorteberg, Cox, <br />DeLuca and Pearson. Voting NO: None. <br /> <br />Case ~17.- Co, pa_ table Worth: <br /> <br />Mr. ~artley stated that the comparable worth report is one that is required <br />of all jurisdictions in Minnesota. That report must set out a plan whereby <br />the employer will pay the employees in such a way that there is a <br />comparable relationship to the job worth. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cox inquired if mewly hired employees can be p~id at a lesser <br />rate until they trained a~d prove their ability. <br /> <br />Mr. ~artley replied that in the plan contained in the comparable worth <br />report, he recom~ that newly hired ~ployees requiring training be paid <br />10% below their appropriate pay range ~til they are adequately trained. <br /> <br />Councilmsmber Pearson noted that the report reflects that some employees <br />are ~lderpaid and inquired as to how adjustments will be made. <br /> <br />Page 19 of 26 <br /> <br /> <br />