Agenda - Council - 10/23/2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

boundaries of the existing pavement (it would be considered lawful non -conforming). It should also be noted that 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. The Permittee has submitted drainage and grading plans, prepared by Bogart, Pederson & Associates, Inc and dated October 2, 2012, to the City for consideration. Staff has reviewed those plans and provided feedback to the Permittee outlining two needed revisions. Revised plans have been submitted Staff is in the process of reviewing them. The Permittee has applied for their WMO permit as well and Staff will provide an update to the City Council regarding the status of that application at the meeting. 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 presently in violation of the terms of the Permit, they have undertaken the necessary steps to complete the required improvements. They have renegotiated their lease with the Property Owner, they have submitted engineered plans for the required improvements, and have applied for their WMO permit. Upon approval of their plans by City Staff and upon receipt of their WMO permit, the Permittee would be ready to commence the required improvements. Therefore, contingent upon the Permittee obtaining their WMO permit, Staff would recommend that the Permittee be granted an extension until December 31, 2012 to complete the required improvements as specified in the approved Permit. 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 receipt of their WMO permit and 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. - and-