05-05-2009 PC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 May 5, 2009 --------------------------- store. He stated that the conditions attempt to bring the property closer to current standards, although it still would not meet all of them. Mr. Howerton suggested that smaller trees or bushes be allowed. He questioned whether planting could even be done in the utility power line easement. Mr. Barnhart stated that ornamental tress are shorter, and suggested that the word "overstory" could be struck from the condition. Mr. Howerton stated he has a serious concern with the location of the sign for the body shop, and felt it should be removed if it is going to be used as a service drive. He stated that the proposed 30-foot easement area currently provides parking for other businesses, and the body shop would not even have an access. He felt the body shop and pet food place should be paving their parking lot. He stated that if the city wants the service road, they should purchase and maintain it. Mr. Howerton stated he is willing to work with the city, and will cooperate in getting this done, but that he is not willing to put up a $50,000 letter of credit. Mr. Dehn stated that since the lease with Mr. Howerton is only one year with an option for a second year, he did not feel it was fair to require him to spend a lot of money. Mr. Barnhart stated that if Mr. Howerton did not want to provide a letter of credit, Condition #12 could be revised to state that the certificate of occupanry could be contingent upon completing the work. He stated that the city has had past experience where improvements were never completed. Mr. Howerton stated that withholding his C.O. for all improvements to be completed would push him past his prime sales season. Commissioner Westberg asked what the orange paint in the parking lot was meant to show. Mr. Howerton stated that is where the islands would go. He stated he could not put in the curbing unless the city is willing to assume responsibility for the easement area. Also, the sign in the roadway needs to be addressed. Commissioner Ives stated that he felt the landscaped islands would create a safer environment, since it now appears the pet food customers cut through the parking lot. He stated that it is important to protect customers by directing the flow of traffic. He noted that the improvements would add value to the property. Mr. Howerton stated he agreed but that there needs to be some thought regarding the width of the road easement. He suggesting just striping the road and see you it works. Commissioner Staul asked staff if the easement needs to be 24 feet wide. Mr. Barnhart that the staff would work with the applicant, but he felt 24 feet is the minimum width it should be. Commissioner Lemke asked if the Condition #13 easement was for the north side of the property. Mr. Barnhart explained that the easement would preserve access for the two properties. Commissioner Lemke asked if easements have been required before. Mr. Barnhart stated that easements are usually required at the time of platting. He felt that providing the easement would help "clean up" some of the property access issues in this area. Commissioner Lemke suggested that the City Engineer take a look at some of the other properties in the city where this issue could arise. Mr. Barnhart stated that the city does not require improvements for adjacent properties as part of an application, but the businesses in this area have evolved from the 1950's and the access issues need to be addressed. Commissioner Lemke stated that he feels the city is being pressured to approve the applicant's request because of his time constraints. He questioned when the applicant made