07-20-99 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Since all of the parking area and the trees on the Freeway Towing project are within the NSP easement, Staff felt NSP should be made aware of the situation. Baker stated he did not feel the burden of approval should be put on the utility company. Livingston asked if NSP has been notified of the proposed facility. Teague stated NSP has not been notified because NSP is not the property owner. Zisla asked if Item No. 8 of the draft resolution is covered under the easement agreement. Zisla stated the City should not expand the utility’s approval right, but should be notified so the utility has the right to comment. Livingston stated NSP should be notified before the item goes to the City Council. Baker commented parking existed over the NSP easement throughout the City. Most of the parking on the Cleveland Avenue and County Road D project is on the utility easement. Livingston stated this proposal differs from the Cleveland Avenue project because trees will be planted on the easement. Schiferl stated that he thought it unusual that the City had not been required to notify the utilities of proposed projects. O’Brien stated that the easement specifies the conditions that must be followed. Zisla stated that, if NSP’s approval is required, it is between NSP and the property owner. Schiferl asked, if NSP says the parking and the trees are not consistent with the easement, the development would not be consistent with the approved landscape plan and site plan. The burden would be on the applicant to comply with the terms of the easement. Zisla stated the easement agreement may address what the property owner can do in the easement area. In that case, the greatest extent of the City’s responsibility may be to notify the utilities of the process. Currently, notifying the utilities is not part of the required process. The question is, can the City change that process for this proposal? O’Brien asked if Zisla was suggesting that the utilities be notified of a proposed project. Zisla replied that he was suggesting the item be deleted from the resolution. Then, the Commission could consider notifying NSP. Schiferl asked if utility easement owners have ever been notified of a proposed project in the past. Baker stated utilities have never been notified of projects in the past. Schiferl asked if Baker was opposed to the notifying a utility in the planning process when neighboring property owners are notified. Baker stated he would not be opposed to such notification. Baker stated that it would be simpler to have Staff check with NSP if they have concern about the proposal. Schiferl asked if that could be made an informal request for this proposal and future proposals. Baker stated the Commission could ask Staff to do so. Teague responded Staff could do that. SP-214 and LP-356 subject to the Motion by Zisla, seconded by Livingston, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF condition, eliminating Condition No. 8 of the Staff Recommendation. 6A-0N.MC. YES AYS OTION ARRIED Baker stated the Commission would like to direct Staff to notify the utilities holding easements on properties coming before the Commission. Teague stated he would do so. Announcements and Updates Zisla asked Teague about the Council action on the Hollywood Video proposal. Teague responded the City Council approved the Hollywood Video proposal with the reversed footprint, subject to several conditions. The hours of operation are to be until 11:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and until midnight Friday and Saturday. The Council recommended that the Task Force continue consideration of the rezoning of that site to B-1. If the site is rezoned and Hollywood Video vacates the site in the future, the next use would have to abide by the B-1 zoning. Adjourn . Motion by Livingston, seconded by O’Brien, 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried. TO ADJOURN THE MEETING The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1999\07-20-99.WPD