2.2. SR 05-11-2009 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The analysis was based on the existing ordinance. With all conditions being met, Staff believes the use would be consistent with the Ordinance. Staff feels these improvements preserve the community interest and the standards for granting a CUP. Planning Commission Discussion The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 5, 2009. The Planning Commission discussed the improvements suggested by staff. The Commission felt that the improvements suggested were reasonable, given the proposal. The Commission also felt that the parking lot islands and landscaping were important additions to the development of the area. Public Comment Ken Dehn, property owner, and Monte Howerton, Repot Depot Owner, had objections to the suggestions made by staff. Dehn questioned the logic of putting trees on the front of a business; his opinion was that this would block the view. He also questioned the need for islands; his opinion was that this would be dangerous. Staff replied to these concerns by stating that the trees add curb appeal to the area, attracting visitors. Additionally, this is a requirement of all other commercial districts, and a lack of visibility has not been demonstrated. Dehn continued, questioning why these improvements have to be made, since the lease is only for a year, with a second year option. Staff replied that the applicant was requesting a CUP, and has not indicated a limited time frame. Further, the actual development of the area based on the Focused Area Study plan is likely many years away. Monte Howerton, Repo Depot, had concerns with the sign that is in the road north of the subject property. Additionally, Howerton wanted the City to absolve liability due to the curbed island. Staff responded, noting that the City does not accept liability for improvements on private property. Staff continued that these proposed improvements were not unlike any other commercial property. In reviewing the sign concern, staff does not believe there to be an issue. The pavement markings in place are misleading, noting the property line. If the Council feels there is an issue, a bollard can be installed to protect the sign until it is removed. Howerton questioned the need to deposit a $50,000 letter of credit. Staff responded, stating the letter of credit protects the city by insuring these improvements would be completed. (I'he City is facing a similar issue where a letter of credit wasn't required, and the city is starting CUP revocation proceedings). Howerton stated he would not supply a letter of credit. Staff suggested alternative language, requiring a LOC if a certificate of occupancy was sought prior to completion of improvements. Howerton was not supportive of this option either. Attachments • Staff Report to Planning Commission dated May 5, 2009 • Site map Action Motion by Second by Vote FOIIOW Up S:\PLANNING MAIN\Case Files\CUP\CU 09-13 National Repo Depot\CU 09-13_CC 5-11-09.doc