Laserfiche WebLink
to end up in Aldi's hands. IN the case of McCallister, there was no necessity for the "kin" to <br /> McCallister to be the applicant since he was clearly present at the meeting. Upon discussion, <br /> neither of us view this as a best practice. It is a separate issue from the fence dispute. Feel free <br /> to reach out for any additional clarification. I did speak with Fritz about this last night. <br /> Thank you, <br /> Chelsee <br /> From: Brian Hagen <br /> Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2024 4:27:36 PM <br /> To: Chelsee Howell <br /> Cc: Debra Musgrove <br /> Subject: RE: Request to Add Agenda Item to Oct. Council Meeting <br /> Chelsee and Debra, <br /> am happy to get something brought forward, but I need to understand more. Is your intent that <br /> only the property owner present their case to PC/CC? I am not aware of a habitual issue when <br /> allowing this that we would not want to allow third party representation. If that is the case, that is <br /> much different than who submits the application. We do require property owner signature on our <br /> land use application. We do include an "applicant" section since the application is generic and <br /> encompasses all land use requests. <br /> For example on the Aldi project, the same application was used for this project where the City signed <br /> as property owner and Aldi was the applicant. It is Aldi's project and therefore they are better to <br /> present the project in front of various boards for approval. Furthermore, it is very common for a <br /> commercial business to be represented by an engineer or architect who is designing the project. <br /> This scenario often occurs before the end users has outright ownership of the land. Same thing also <br /> occurred with U-Haul. <br /> In the case of a variance, where the user is often times the land owner both on commercial or <br /> residential applications it is not that common for the property owner to have someone else <br /> represent them through the process. Speaking to the McCallister variance specifically since this <br /> request is generating the discussion, Mr. McCallister did present much of his request. The "kin" to <br /> McCallister as stated by her at the meeting was the applicant and spoke in addition to McCallister. <br /> She simply could be viewed as someone providing public comment during the public hearing. <br /> As far as the application goes, I do not know that the ordinance would need to change (here's a link <br /> to the code section 106-211 for information on application form). <br /> If part of the goal is to prevent future property line disputes like the McCallister/Teten issue, then <br /> we could require an updated survey prepared by a licensed land surveyor be submitted with <br /> applications. This can technically be required under Sec. 106-212, but staff's practice is to limit <br /> when we require the added expense of a survey be incurred by applicants. For example, the <br /> Forester and Ploumen variance applications did not come with new surveys as part of the <br /> application. This saves them the expense not knowing whether it would be granted. This updated <br />