My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Council - 07/27/2021
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Council
>
2021
>
Minutes - Council - 07/27/2021
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/13/2025 11:06:35 AM
Creation date
9/13/2021 10:57:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
07/27/2021
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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
<br /> <br />Councilmember Riley requested clarification from Councilmember Howell regarding her position <br />on abatements. <br /> <br />Councilmember Howell referenced Oak Terrace Estates, stating the City should apply standards <br />consistently across the Highway 10 businesses. She added she does not support enforcing <br />standards for some Highway 10 businesses but not others. She noted maybe the standards need to <br />be relaxed. <br /> <br />Mayor Kuzma stated the city has historically been very strict about businesses with unpaved and <br />gravel areas, and there have been cases where businesses have been forced to pave their lots. He <br />added it would not be appropriate to relax regulations and let people park on their grass when <br />previous standards were more restrictive. <br /> <br />Councilmember Specht asked whether the applicant has come up to Code standards, and this <br />amendment is to have something in place in case they violate the Code again, and they will go <br />straight to abatement. Planning Technician McCann agreed that is the intention. <br /> <br />Councilmember Specht stated he does not support having a Code violation go immediately to <br />abatement without first working with the business. <br /> <br />Councilmember Heineman stated there has to be a standard, and the City Council should use their <br />best judgment to navigate these nuances. He added this applicant is already in compliance, and <br />the abatement will not happen. He asked what will happen if the amendment is not approved and <br />the business violates the code again. <br /> <br />Senior Planner McGuire Brigl stated, without abatement, conditions would still apply. She <br />stressed the importance of having a document to support findings and show that the City Council <br />is taking the matter seriously. She noted, in this case, there have been 10-12 violations since 2013. <br /> <br />Councilmember Riley stated he would support removing the first two bullet points related to <br />expedited compliance. He stressed the importance of remembering that when there is a Code <br />enforcement issue, there is also a resident or neighbor who made a complaint. <br /> <br />Councilmember Riley stated Highway 10 historically has been an eyesore for the City, and the <br />EDA has battled for years to make Highway 10 a more welcoming gateway to bring in businesses. <br />He added parking on improved surfaces was an item of importance that was often considered. He <br />expressed concern that if the City Council backpedals on these improvements to help local <br />businesses, all that hard work will be undone. <br /> <br />Councilmember Riley stated the mobile home park is not a good template for how to deal with <br />businesses, since most of the Code violations are residential in nature set in place in the 1960s. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove requested clarification regarding Councilmember Riley’s comment <br />about removing the first two steps of abatement from the Code update. <br /> <br />City Council / July 27, 2021 <br />Page 22 of 25 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.