Laserfiche WebLink
City in this manor. Creating the lot-split creates multiple issues for the City. If Planning <br />Commission wants to entertain, development issues that deal with a lot-split that would be <br />appropriate. The dilemma is that the variances would be created by the lot-split, which in turn <br />means the City takes on the burdens brought about, by the lot-split. As no development, plans have <br />been submitted the applicants can not be held/bound to what they may or may not want to do later. <br />Furthermore, the City would be hard pressed to deny anything the applicants want to do later as the <br />burden would be created by the City. He suggested that covenants could/should be placed on the <br />land to protect the City. <br />Board Members Comments and Concerns; <br />Mr. Spalding questioned if the law department was advising the commissioners to only make <br />recommendations at this time. 1bIr. Schmitz indicated that they know that they have to submit <br />complete plans when they develop the lot, but the lot split does not create anything. He questioned <br />why the City would not want the improvements. The Romp's would like to sale the land and <br />developer wants to purchase the land and improve it. So why is the City against it? 1!'Ir. Spalding <br />commented that the Law Department has advised that in the absence of the Planning Commission <br />having complete development plans they would need to deny the applicant's request. The Planning <br />Commission wants to be pro active but there is a dilemma present. In the absence of complete <br />development plans, the Planning Commissioners hands are tied. Mr. O'Malley voiced that the <br />Planning Commission could address concerns they wish to be addressed in the submittal. Mr. <br />Spalding reviewed that there would be two parcels and the concerns are the two dumpsters on the <br />site. They need to be addressed. The rear corner has a resident by the motel which faces, this site <br />and the corner needs to be cleaned up the area is filled with junk i.e. pallets. The fencing along the <br />side needs to be repaired. <br />Owners comments: <br />Mr. Romp indicated that Drug Mart has been on the site for 25 years, in the beginning they took <br />care of the site now they do not take care of the inside or outside of the site. Drug Mart now has 50 <br />stores and the owners just do not take pride in the appearance of the site anymore. The site has <br />become a pigsty inside and out. They have tried to get Drug Mart to improve the site. Three years <br />ago, they approached Drug Mart about updating the site and they offered to help. Drug mart <br />indicated that they wanted the owners to pay 50 percent of the upgrades and then when the sign issue <br />went tot court they withdrew their offer to help. In Westlake, there is a Walgreen's that is nicely <br />kept and when they contacted Walgreen's they directed them to the developer to help us. The <br />developer can handle Drug Mart we cant. According to the lease they do not have to let them know <br />until august 31, 2003, whether they will extend their lease or not. The Romp's would like the <br />property to be sold before the lease is up. The developer is in a much better position to take Drug <br />Mart on then we are. They will be in a better position to get the site cleaned up then we are now. <br />Board member's comments: <br />Mr. Lasko remarked that the applicants are trying to get the City involved so that it would give a <br />private developer better leverage. The plot thickens! Mr. Romp indicated they just want to sale the <br />lot so it can be cleaned-up. 1VIr. Lasko reiterated that until the City knows what will accrue they <br />could not address anything. The applicants have not shown any efforts that they are willing to work <br />with the City to make sure that what is done is best for the City and not just their back pockets. Mr. <br />Oravecz suggested Planning Commission requested the state code issues be addressed which have <br />and submit plans showing what will be done, it will be re-facing or building a new building. <br />However, both depend on what Drug Mart decides to do. Mr. Lasko reviewed that A there have <br />been no official plans submitted and B there is no guarantee that either the re-facing or new building <br />will ever take place, if the request is approved. 1VIr. Oravecz indicated that if Drug Mart chooses to <br />stay they would reface the existing building. Alternatively, if they chose to leave then we will build <br />a new building. Once the lot-split is approved, it needs to go before Council for final approval. <br />5