Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />Planning Commission <br />February 11, 1988 <br />Frank <br />Frattalone <br />CUP <br />(Cont.) <br />The Planner reported that he has talked with the sprinkler company and <br />it is their intent to eventually move their office into the building. <br />The Planner stated that he could not understand Schultz's concern as <br />storage is one of the more benign uses that is permitted in B -3. <br />Traffic and noise from the storage should be almost non - existent <br />from the problems that have been experienced in the past on this site. <br />Timmons pointed out that the site will never be developed with a retail <br />use, and if it were, there would be a lot more traffic than with the <br />storage use. <br />Schultz stated that if an office were developed on the site there would <br />not be the weekend traffic and problems that have been on the site in <br />the past. <br />Timmons noted that the property is for sale and if Schultz purchased <br />it, he would then have control over it. <br />Schultz felt that Frattalone could sell the property if he placed a <br />reasonable price on it taking into account that the property is not <br />industrial property. Schultz felt that with the adjoining land, the <br />area could be developed as an office park. <br />Costa noted that the City cannot tell Mr. Frattalone how much to ask <br />for his property. <br />Frattalone reported that he wants his building to be in conformance, <br />and felt the proposal before the Commission will accomplish this. <br />Davison asked if the whole building would be used for storage. <br />Frattalone reported that the building is divided into five bays. One <br />bay is occupied by a landscaping company and the other has cars stored <br />in it. This business would occupy a third bay. <br />Davison asked if there would be manufacturing done on site, and if there <br />was, would that be grounds to revoke the CUP. <br />The Planner replied that the CUP would be for storage only and if <br />there was manufacturing or an industrial use in the building, the City <br />could revoke the CUP. <br />Davison asked if the sprinklering company asked to locate their office <br />in the buildng, if storage would be allowed. The Planner replied that <br />it would. <br />Davison pointed out the parking improvements recommended by the Planner <br />and asked if businesses not meeting the parking requirements of the new <br />Code would be grandfathered in. <br />The Planner replied that non - conforming parking lots are not necessarily <br />Page 7 <br />