PC 05/24/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

In response to Chairman Wright, Mr. Huff deferred to Mr. Churka to respond whether he does or does not agree with the conditions of approval. Chairman Wright addressed the speaker's concern regarding bringing up previously settled items. The Commission had asked staff to analyze the project against the "shaHs" and "shoulds" of the Design Guidelines. Commissioner Lutz clarified with the speaker that their intent for a walk-up window agrees with Condition 12. Ed Churka, 507 St. John Street. He advised that he has never applied for a walk-up window, furthermore, he does not see the need of a walk-up window because two feet further is the doorway to the inside counter. Chairman Wright clarified that staff's concern was for mitigating a possible problem with cars stacking in front of the window. The applicant spoke to the fact that there is inadequate parking available in downtown, and staff wants him to build an even larger building eliminating even more parking. Mr. Churka feels the Guidelines don't work in relation to his property and his customers' needs. He stated that the revised double door is actually smaller than the single door and causes more problems for handicapped access. Mr. Churka wanted it recorded in the Minutes that his building square footage is still approximate and may change at final buildout. Mr. Churka noted his dislike for the color scheme; however, he is willing to accept the colors if staff is satisfied. He also noted that security has been a major concern for them. He also commented that the entire downtown is diverse and doesn't know what staff is trying to match his building to. Mr. Churka spoke to the need to have adequate parking available so customers can park and frequent his business. He feels at a disadvantage if he doesn't have adequate parking. Regarding the widening of Ray Street, Mr. Churka believes the corner bubble-out should be eliminated, thus providing easier traffic flow without having the expense of widening the street. Mr. Churka cannot agree to some of the conditions of approval because of their being open- ended. He had concerns with the following conditions: Condition 34: Mr. Churka feels this condition will prohibit him from starting grading between October 15 and April 15 because of the added expense of proper erosion control measures. Chairman Wright noted that this is a standard condition and everyone must comply. Mr. Higdon clarified that grading can begin if proper erosion control is installed. Condition 5: Mr. Iserson explained that if Mr. Churka is not ready to begin building at the end of one year, he may apply for an extension of the design review approval for a nominal fee. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 May 24, 1995