Agenda - Council - 10/09/2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

another term of the Permit requires the surface of the parking/display area be upgraded to current zoning standards by June 30, 2016 if the interchange project has not been initiated or upon written notification from the City that the project will not be initiated. Just this week, Staff received grading and drainage plans, prepared by Bogart, Pederson & Associates, Inc. and dated October 2, 2012, and are in the process of reviewing them. The Permittee has also stated that they will be submitting their plans and application to the Lower Rum River Water Management Organization (LRRWMO) for consideration at their October meeting. Finally, the Permittee stated that their contractor stated that, once all approvals are in place, the improvements could be completed in about two (2) weeks time. Recommendation: The impacts to the Subject Property due to the potential Armstrong Blvd/Highway 10 interchange project have created some financial concern for both the Permittee and the Property Owner relating to the installation of surfacing material. Both have expressed concern in their ability to recoup this significant investment should the interchange project commence in the next several years (2014-2016 time frame had been the consistently stated goal/hope of the City). At the time this request was initially considered by the City, there was still hope that between potential grant opportunities and the State bonding bill, the interchange project could commence sometime between 2014 and 2016. Since that time, though, the City was informed that the grant requests were not awarded and that the project was not included in the bonding bill. Both the Permittee and the Property Owner have been informed that the time frame for the interchange project now is likely to be further into the future than originally anticipated. Nonetheless, both the Permittee and the Property Owner were aware or were made aware of this potential project. The Property Owner met with the County and their consultant in 2010 to discuss the project and the Permittee was informed by City Staff of this potential project prior to their submittal of an application for a conditional use permit. While the Permittee is in violation of the terms of the Permit, they have now taken several steps needed to complete the required improvements. They have renegotiated their lease with the Property Owner, they have submitted professionally prepared plans for the required improvements, and are in the process of applying for their WMO permit. As mentioned previously, the Permittee has stated that once they receive all required approvals, the improvements could be completed in just a couple weeks. At the meeting, Staff will provide a verbal update to the City Council whether the Permittee has submitted an application to the WMO. If so, Staff would recommend continuing the public hearing until the October 23, 2012, at which time Staff could update the City Council as to whether the Permittee successfully obtained a permit from the WMO and may potentially provide additional recommendations as well. If the Permittee has not submitted an application to the WMO for consideration, Staff would recommend proceeding with the public hearing this evening. Funding Source: The applicant is responsible for costs associated with this case. Council Action: Motion to adopt Resolution #12-10- permit. - and- adopting Findings of Fact to support continuation of the conditional use Motion to confirm the continuation of the conditional use permit, contingent upon installation of required improvements by December 31, 2012. - or- Motion to adopt Resolution # 12-10- adopting Findings of Fact to support revocation of the conditional use permit.