10-28-1987 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES Planning Commission October 8, 1987 Bahram Ahradi, representing U.S. Swim and Fitness, reported that he was opposed to the Planner's recommendation regarding installation of curbing around the parking lot. Ahradi pointed out that the building is existing and only a minimum amount of remodeling will be done. Ahradi felt that the improvements the Planner was requesting would cost in the neighborhood of $100,000 and felt that this was too much to ask to allow a sandwich shop in the building. Ahradi pointed out that Mr. Schroeder owns the building, and U.S. Swim & Fitness is only a tenant. Ahradi reported that Schroeder has plans for further development of his adjacent property, and felt the time to require the curbing was when this development proposal is presented to the City. The Planner noted that there are other businesses that could locate within U.S. Swim & Fitness that do not require a conditional use permit. In those cases, the proposal would not appear for approval, and no curbing requirement would be made. Timmons agreed that it was an expensive improvement to require. Ahradi reported that he has plans for additional blacktop as well as striping of the parking lot. Ahradi also reported that with regard to the Planner's report the driveways of U.S. Swim & Fitness and Hardee's do line up and there was a mistake on the architect's drawing showing the driveways. Timmons asked the hours of business of U.S. Swim & Fitness. Ahradi replied that they are open 24 -hours per day. Sertich reported that his sandwich shop would be open from 11A.M. until 10 P.M. Timmons did not feel that the shop would close at 10 P.M., especially with a beer and wine license. Davison noted that the City has encouraged other areas of the City to comply with Code requirements, specifically Ryan Industrial Park. Davison reported that in Ryan Industrial Park when various development requests came in, the City used the opportunity to get property owners to conform to Code. Davison felt a precedent would be set if this was not done in this instance. Ahradi felt that the Planning Commission's job was to review each situation on its own merits, and commented that if Codes were strictly adhered to, there would be no need for Planning Commissions. Ahradi felt that the Planning Commission had to use good judgment in each case. Timmons agreed. But pointed out the City's past practice in getting businesses to comply to the Code. Timmons felt that if a situation existed where there is a reason to get a property owner to conform to Code, then this should be done. Timmons asked Ahradi if he has approached Mr. Schroeder about the improvement. Page 8