My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Council - 09/24/2002
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Council
>
2002
>
Minutes - Council - 09/24/2002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/25/2025 12:09:32 PM
Creation date
5/6/2003 2:11:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
09/24/2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
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
Mr. Thompson replied no. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich noted that the City will need to get an estimate on the cost of the <br />improvements and then they typically require a letter of credit for 125 percent of the cost. <br /> <br />Councihnember Hendriksen inquired if it was the City Attorney's opinion that they were being <br />held hostage by a nuisance that is being created by a company to grant them a conditional use <br />permit, which then they have achieved a more formal position in operating their business. Staff <br />made the statement that they cun'ently could not do much about the dust and inquired if that was <br />the City Attorney's opinion. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich replied that the City does have a nuisance ordinance that could impact <br />what is occurring. The Council could also withhold the issuance of the conditional use permit <br />until the problem is remedied. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Frolik clarified that the City does not have the authority to go <br />in and require site improvements unless they need something from the City. They can go in and <br />address concerns if they receive a compliant, which they currently had not. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen inquired if there is a nuisance could the City ask them to remedy it <br />by adding pavement. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Frolik replied that she did not think that the City could go as <br />far as requiring them to pave the street. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich stated that the property owner would have to do what it takes to remedy <br />the problem. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman inquired if Finding #14 should be left in the affirmative. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Frolik replied that Finding #14 pertains to the 60-day <br />extension and the new deadline is November 11, 2002. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich recommended that Finding #14 be split into two separate findings as <br />follows: <br /> <br />#14: That the 60 day extension gives the City until September 13, 2002, to make a final <br />decision on the request for a conditional use permit. <br /> <br />#15: The proposed use will not involve uses, activities and equipment that will be detrimental <br />to any persons, property, or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, <br />noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. <br /> <br />City Council/September 24, 2002 <br /> Page 17 of 33 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.