Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Sharpe asked why there is a difference in this fence and that of the previous petition. Mr. <br /> Van Steenhuyse stated that it was felt that nothing would be gained to require removal of the <br /> existing fence and for petitioner to construct another fence. <br /> There were no objedors present. <br /> Mr. Jerry Hendricks, owner of the subject property,was present and stated that he could answer <br /> questions. <br /> Mr. Naber stated that he hoped this case does represent an opportunity to improve a property on a <br /> main artery into town. Mr. Hendricks stated that the petitioners have shown initiative and that <br /> the previous tenants lacked the capital to do what they had proposed. There were pictures of <br /> what has been achieved so far by the petitioners. <br /> Mr. Anderson asked about the selling of items such as file cabinets on the property. Mr. Van <br /> Steenhuyse stated that the ordinance does not allow that now. Mr.Hendricks stated that those <br /> items were sold to raise money for improvements to the property and the sale is done. <br /> Mr. Sharpe stated for clarification that cars on display must be on a paved surface and the storage <br /> of cars can be on gravel and must be enclosed. Mr. Van Steenhuyse stated that was correct. Mr. <br /> Hendricks stated that arrangements have been made to pave the lot if this petition is approved. <br /> It was moved and seconded(Sands/Nordholm)to forward Cal. No. 02-54 to City Council with <br /> recommendation for approval per staff recommendation. Motion carried unanimously. <br />