Laserfiche WebLink
City Council Minutes Page 5 <br /> November 19,2012 <br /> • Steve Rohff, 17219 Highway 10-Stated he is opposed to the condition that requires <br /> $10,000 of escrow for the landscaping.He stated the only thing left for them is planting <br /> some grass around the building.He further noted they planted more trees than required. He <br /> also expressed concern with the condition that they have to meet all applicable fire codes. <br /> He stated he didn't want to have to install additional fire hydrants after the fire chief already <br /> told them what was needed because they have already installed asphalt over the location.He <br /> stated the Park Dedication fee should stay at what was already agreed upon in 2006. <br /> Mr.Barnhart stated the requirement to meet fire codes is a standard condition in case some <br /> type of violation occurs at a later date and the city needs to consider revoking the <br /> conditional use permit due to any violations. <br /> Mayor Dietz questioned the escrow for the landscaping condition. <br /> Mr.Barnhart stated this is a 2012 conditional use permit and the city needs to ensure the <br /> applicant is meeting current code requirements for landscaping. <br /> Councilmembers Zerwas and Gumphrey had no concerns with removing the$10,000 <br /> escrow condition. <br /> Councilmember Motin questioned what the process would be if the applicant didn't comply <br /> with the landscaping requirements. <br /> Mr.Barnhart stated it is easier to compel compliance by using the escrow funds and noted it <br /> would be more difficult to revoke the conditional use permit. <br /> • Mayor Dietz expressed concern with not applying rules consistently from one applicant to <br /> another. <br /> Mr.Rolfe stated he would be okay to leave the escrow as a condition of the permit as long as <br /> he only had to comply with the 2006 ordinance requirements for landscaping. <br /> Councilmember Motin stated the applicant should meet the 2012 landscaping requirements <br /> because he is bound by the current city code as any other applicant would be. <br /> Mr.Rolfe stated he got approval for his whole project in 2006 and the landscaping was the <br /> first phase completed while everything else lapsed.He stated being it was completed in 2006, <br /> should not have to be changed to match 2012 requirements. <br /> Councilmember Motin stated both conditions should remain. He stated the applicant took <br /> six years to work forward on his project and the laws have changed since that timeframe, <br /> and as, such he should have to meet current fire code requirements. <br /> A. Conditional Use Permit: Expansion,Case No. CU 12-2 <br /> MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOTIN AND SECONDED BY <br /> COUNCILMEMBER WESTGAARD TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE <br /> PERMIT CASE NO. CU 12-20 AS ILLUSTRATED ON THE FOLLOWING <br /> DRAWINGS: <br /> • • BUILDING ELEVATIONS DATED OCTOBER 25,2012,SHEET A4. <br />