Laserfiche WebLink
i • <br />/•■ 'x: ^€\ <br />■■■." v v > ‘ttt'Jf *-. '•'•».■■r; y* <br />-,i ,;v;. . .i*] <br />•V •• :. • ’ ; <br />ife-l;^. <br />mpm <br />MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16, 1981 Page 5 <br />Hammerel questioned why Thaxter wasn't tagged in the first <br />place? Mabusth explained that the majority of the people <br />don't understand the policies of the City and that it is <br />the policy of the City to wait for a specified period of <br />time once applicant is notified of violation if there is <br />no response to the warning the resident is issued a tag. <br />McDonald asked what the purpose of coming in for an "after <br />the fact" conditional use permit if they have already <br />done it anyway. <br />Adams suggested that Council consider tripling the fee <br />for "after the fact", applications and suggested tagging <br />be done immediately. , <br />Vote: Ayes (^), Nays (3). <br />Minority Opinions: <br />Rovegno - He stated that no "after the fact" conditional <br />use permits should be approved in a designated wetlands <br />area regardless of the easement. The City still could <br />obtain the easement even if they denied it. He noted <br />that the applicant violated the wetlands ordinance and <br />the zoning code. Even if they denied they could condition <br />it so that the applicant would have to sign the quit <br />claim deed and conservation easement over the wetlands. <br />McDonald - She felt that he violated the City's wetlands <br />ordinance. She felt that the City could still obtain <br />the easement if denied. <br />Callahan - He concurred with the others. <br />Applicant was present. Mabusth noted that no action <br />could be taken on this application because the notices <br />were never sent out to the neighbors. She explained <br />that the envelopes were never received from the applicant <br />and that the City contacted his office, but no one ever <br />responded to the request. Applicant explained that he <br />was out of town and that he did not know. <br />Rovegno, being one of the neighbors, had no problems <br />with the application. He stated that the place had <br />never looked better than it does now. <br />(THAXTER' CONTv ) - <br />i.1 <br />•y 'v : <br />• aiF /. -rw" <br />■■; c.= . :• A* <br />PAUL FAHLIN <br />1960 Shoreline Dr <br />Conditional Use <br />Permit <br />#661 <br />Applicant asked the Planning Commission if they could <br />issue a permit to just operate the gas sales. Mabusth <br />noted with non conforming uses the City has always required <br />a conditional use permit for new ownership. <br />Hammerel explained the setback problem for the existing <br />L.P. tanks. <br />•4 <br />i ; ’'J • '