01/14/2003 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Anything that is done to the site will require that complete plans be submitted, go through the Boards and Commissions and then back to Council again. They have tried to take out as many questions as they possibly can. They are asking that the City work with them to improve the site. Mr. Spalding questioned what kind of position the City would be in if the development plans were not liked once they are submitted then the Cities hands are tied. Allowing this lot-split puts the City in a very awkward position. Mr. Oravecz suggested that Mr. Romp has brought us in to improve the site, that is all. Mr. Hreha suggested that if the results mean better then what is currently there, then the City should try to work with the applicant as much as possible. Between the Law Department and the developer, they should be able to work out the hurdles. 1VIr. Spalding suggested that the development agreement was not quite there in addressing all the issues. Law Departments comments: Mr. O'Malley voiced that he agreed with Mr. Spalding's comment that the development agreement could be better. Mr. Hreha questioned how Planning Commission should proceed. Mr. O'Malley suggested that in the absence of a development plan, maybe it should be tabled until all the legal issues could be addressed. Council could explore issues and additional ways to explore the development issue and lot-split at the same time. Mr. Oravecz commented that they would like Planning Commissions approval subject to Council's approval. Either way they will have to be back to Planning Commission to do anything. Mr. Spalding would like to see a hypothetical plan attached to the agreement. The applicants are to address the dumpsters, lighting, fencing, and cleaning up the back of the site. Landscaping needs to be addressed along the rear boot it is just pallets, trash and the area is zoned residential. Those types of issues will need to be shown in the development agreement. Board member's comments: Mrs. Hof-Smith voiced that she did not feel that it was right to send the applicants back to have more detailed plans drawn up when they do not know what Drug Mart is doing. Mr. Oravecz suggested that everyone present would like to see the site improved. Mr. Spalding suggested that the development agreement needed to address the Law Departments concerns and include the Planning Commission concerns voiced above. Mr. Lasko questioned what development plans as none has been submitted. They also have not addressed what will happen to the south end of the site, which the new owners will not have any control over. Mr. Romp suggested that the south parcel (b) has nothing to do with the lot-split being requested. lo'Ir. Oravecz suggested that the rear shopping center is going to remain as it presently is today. They have agreed to finish the end of the shopping center wall, but that is it. Everything else will remain the same other then the lot they will own. Mr. Spalding indicated that the applicants would be tabled and instructed them to work with the Law Department to incorporate Romp property and guarantee the entire site will be cleaned up. Mrs. O'Rourke questioned if parcel B will remain Romps can the City include the clean up of Romps parcel in the agreement. Mr. Romp suggested that parcel B is only 15 years old and is not in need of repair. Mrs. O'Rourke requested that the current owners address the dumpster area, shingles and requested brick fencing. Mr. Schmitz questioned what type of elevations the Planning Commission was requesting. Mr. Conway would like to see a complete site plan. He would also need to know what materials would be used to finish off the remaining south building. Mr. O'Malley suggested that the Law Department would be willing to work with applicant to help make an acceptable submittal. W. Spalding motioned to table Romp Realty their request to split Permanent Parcel leTumber 237-01-001 into two parcels indefinitely. Planning Commission recommends the applicants work with the Law Department to incorporate what was discussed and to make sure everyone is on the same page. Planning Commission further recommends that the applicants continue their efforts to improve the site. J. Lasko seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. Proposal Tabled 6