10/16/90 Special - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City Engineer Jankowski noted that the applicant is not proposing to provide hard surfacing, curb, gutter and exterior walls of 50% other than metal in accordance to City Code. In regard to this issue, Ms. Frolik has prepared an analysis of several site plans for expansions processed in the last two years for comparison purposes. The report indicates that in some instances, the City has waived the requirement for 50% other than metal exterior walls. In only one case, the requirement for hard surfacing was waived because of future expansion plans. In three cases, the hard surfacing was not waived, regardless of the business being located on an unimproved street. Chairman Zimmerman indicated that he feels the City ordinances should be amended to impose less stringent performance standards on the properties located in the low visibility industrial area; he feels the performance standards were intended for high visibility businesses along the Highway 10 corridor. Mr. Vevea noted that he does have decorative masonry on the office portion of his facility and that there are eight metal buildings located in his area that do not have any decorative masonry applied to them. The consensus of the Commission was that the requirement for 50% other metal exterior walls would be waived for the expansion of Ve-Ve, Inc. Commissioner Terry stated that, in his opinion, the Planning and Zoning Commission has to determine whether or not it wants to maintain the status quo of the subject area as one of pole barns, or if the City is interested in upgrading the area at the time businesses expand. A discussion ensued regarding Item gl 0 of the City Engineer's report concerning drainage on the subject property. Mr. Jankowski indicated that he is recommending that a retention area be created in the northeast portion of the lot to accommodate the run off that will result from the additional paving. Mr. Vevea stated that he was informed by Mr. Don Greenberg, developer of this industrial park, that the drainage is supposed to flow along the ditch on Azurite Street. Mr. Jankowski indicated that there is not a drainage easement in place that was ever designated for that purpose. The drainage on the property does not flow downhill from Mr. Vevea's property to the County ditch. The consensus of the Commission was that Mr. Vevea will have to provide an on-site ponding area. A discussion ensued regarding the requirement for curbing and paving. The Commission was considering a staged development agreement for paving and curbing that would require said improvements to completed within two years after Azurite Street is improved. Mr. Otto stated that not requiring on-site improvements until the street is improved will be a deterrent to the street ever being improved because the property owner will object to said improvements as he will not only incur the cost for a street assessment, but he will also incur the cost of having to finally upgrade his property. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/OCTOBER 16, 1990 Page 3 of 11