12-13-2005 PC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 December 13, 2005 --------------------------- Commissioner Ropp concurred. He is concerned about snow removal. He stated further concerns over how difficult it is maintain occupancy in the mall and that this business may inhibit other businesses from moving in. Commissioner Lemke stated the issues being discussed by the Commission are landlord/tenant issues and the Commission should not be deciding if this is the right business for this site. He stated this is an allowed use with a CUP. He stated the applicant is complying with what is required from the city’s ordinance. Commissioner Offerman stated that this application is a little different due to the landlord/tenant relationship. He expressed concern over allowing the CUP and then if this person leaves, another individual could come in. He stated he can’t support it due to the permancy of the CUP and that it is a tenant applying for it. He stated he would like to hear from the landlord and applicant. Chair Anderson stated concerns with policing issues. He stated he is concerned with more vehicles appearing “for sale” by citizens. He is concerned with the overall appearance as this is near the entrance into the city. He stated concerns with outdoor storage being allowed. Chair Anderson is not in favor of this use in a multi-tenant site. Commissioner Westgaard stated it would be the landlord’s responsibility to police the lot. He agreed that he didn’t want to see the auto sales at the mall but due to the zoning it would be an allowable use. He stated he would like to hear from the applicant and the landlord. He stated snow removal concerns and felt it could be a detrimental impact to adjacent tenants MOVED BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS TO CONTINUE CASE NO. CU 05-24. Commissioner Lemke requested that the continuing motion be withdrawn to allow further discussion. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Commissioner Lemke stated the Commission does not have sufficient findings to deny the request. He stated it is the landlord’s responsibility to choose tenants through a lease. He stated the Commission can only look at the allowed use through a CUP. Commissioner Offerman stated he believed the applicant should be the landlord and not the tenant as the CUP travels with the land. Commissioner Stevens stated the applicant already has a CUP and he doesn’t want to see this business appearing all over town. He stated he has a hard time allowing leases to dictate what the city will allow. Commissioner Lemke stated the lease agreement is not dictating what we have in the city because the city ordinance allows this use with a CUP. He stated he would like to discuss proper cause for denying this CUP. Commissioner Stevens stated he would like to continue this item to hear from the applicant and the landlord and to also prepare findings in case of denial. Commissioner Westgaard questioned if it would be possible to tie, through a condition, the CUP to the tenant and not to the property.