Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MAY 9, 2019 <br /> <br /> - 4 - <br />Filler stated that his property tax statement indicates that he has more land <br />than is shown on the map. The Associate Planner explained that a survey <br />would be required when a building permit is applied for. <br /> <br />Johnson clarified that everything the applicant has proposed is conforming <br />to the I-P District except for the outdoor storage. She stated that she is <br />enthusiastic about this project, and understands that outdoor storage is very <br />important to the applicant. She agreed the Planning Commission should <br />review the outdoor storage code to make sure they are meeting the needs. <br /> <br />Mr. Holm stated that the outdoor storage is essential to their needs and <br />growth. <br /> <br />The Planning Associate explained that staff had met with the applicant a <br />few times and based on the fact that they could meet all of the I-P <br />requirements, it was determined that a variance would be what they are <br />requesting rather than rezoning the property. She asked if there is a lower <br />amount of outdoor storage that the applicant could work with versus the 60 <br />percent. Schwalbach noted that he understands the outdoor storage needs <br />and understands that it is an important piece of the applicant’s business. <br />He asked if this could be tabled so the Planning Commission could review <br />the city code. The Planning Associate explained that the applicant has <br />asked for 60 percent, but she stated that the Planning Commission could <br />approve a lower amount. Mr. Holm stated that he cannot continue to grow <br />without more space. Schwalbach asked if it could be rezoned in order to <br />allow them more outdoor storage. The Planning Associate explained that it <br />would be spot zoning to rezone the property only to allow the additional <br />outdoor storage when the applicant can meet all of the existing zoning <br />requirements except for one. <br /> <br />Buesing asked about the 36 month delay. The Planning Associate <br />explained that the applicant stated that there are things to work out prior to <br />being able to start construction. Buesing asked when On-Site would start <br />construction. Mr. Holm explained that it would depend on how long it <br />takes Buck Blacktop to vacate the property. <br /> <br />Uldis Erdmanis, owner of 32 South Owasso Boulevard West and Buck <br />Blacktop, reviewed why he feels the site is challenged, and he has not been <br />able to find a buyer for an I-P District property. He stated that as far as the <br />interim use, there would no increase in the amount of outdoor storage and <br />noted that there is screening along the front. He explained that he could <br />vacate the site fairly quickly. <br /> <br />Schwalbach stated that he thinks this is a great use of the property due the <br />unique shape. He stated he could go either way, but as long as they will