Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cox stated that it is the assessor's responsibility to make sure <br />property is assessed appropriately. <br /> <br />Commissioner Zimmerman stated that the city's leverage to enforce ordinance <br />compliance on Mr. Hickman is that he is using warehouse space for commercial <br />activities. <br /> <br />Commissioner Fults stated that the city did accept Mr. Hickman's money and <br />issue a building permit; the matter should be resolved in a diplomatic way. <br /> <br />Commissioner Deemer pointed out that Mr. Hickman knew the requirements in <br />advance; he knew within 5 days that there was a question on setback because the <br />City Assessor visited the property and walked it off. Court precedence is that <br />when a building permit is issued and there is misinformation on it, the permit <br />is invalid. Mr. Hickman's permit is not valid because of the proposed use <br />being documented as warehouse and actual use is retail. <br /> <br />Consensus was that Councilmember Cox and Ms. Norris will meet again with Mr. <br />Hickman to negotiate a resoltuion to Mr. Hickman's proposal dated August 30, <br />1986 and the city's concerns regarding same; that the information will be <br />forwarded to P&Z for their information and Council will take final action on <br />the case of Plants and Things. <br /> <br />Brief discussion ensued regarding whether or not the ordinances addressing <br />commercial development are too strict; the need for consistency and agreement <br />in enforcing the ordinances; adequate number of staff required to monitor <br />ordinance compliance; a plan for the ultimate development desired on Hwy. 110. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cox stated that he disagrees somewhat with requiring too much of <br />the interim businesses that will operate on Hwy. #10 until the ultimate <br />development comes in there. <br /> <br />Commissioner Ippel stated that the desireable development will not come if the <br />City doesn't set a policy of enforcing development ordinances; that type of <br />investment will not be risked if there is a chance the city will not enforce <br />the same ordinances on the adjacent property. Commissioner Ippel pointed out <br />an example as being the neat appearing development happening on the south side <br />of Hwy. #10 and then the city grants approval to a mini-storage facility with <br />no requirements for screening, landscaping, etc. It's not fair to those that <br />made substantial investments in their property to enforce ordinance compliance <br />based on the state of the economy. <br /> <br />Mayor Reimann referred to a building that is being constructed on agricultural <br />property on Hwy. #47 that is obviously intended as a retail landscaping <br />business. The owner has the right to construct such a building on agricultural <br />property but he is anticipating approval of a conditional use to conduct retail <br />sales. Mayor Reimann stated that he intends to continue his policy of limiting <br />commercial activities to business and industrial zones. Previous commercial <br />activity (Ramsey Clinic) was not approved their location choice and Brookview <br />Estates did not get access in the area of this new landscaping business because <br />of traffic hazards; this is poor planning on the part of P&Z. Council has been <br />putting forth a good effort to discourage business in residential areas. <br />EDC-PZ-Council/Bovember 20, 1986 <br /> <br />Page 5 of 7 <br />