Property applicant seeks clearer staff communication after pre‑application; city staff to follow up with landowner

Developer Jim Gaither (Gaither & Associates) used public comment to press the council and staff for clearer follow‑up on a pre‑application he said was submitted after a meeting with planning staff on Jan. 6 and Jan. 9. Gaither said he resubmitted revised plans at staff’s request and has a due‑diligence deadline of Jan. 14 (the transcript reports a deadline in mid‑January); he said he had not received the promised follow‑up or an update from planning staff.

Gaither raised two substantive issues: (1) whether required zoning and C‑2 general commercial compliance items had been satisfied by the submitted revisions, and (2) whether access across a neighboring road owned by the Lisowski family could be secured by easement. Gaither said staff had requested revisions and indicated the revisions addressed most concerns, but he had not received confirmation. He told the council, “All I’m asking for is a response. Either we can do it or we can’t.”

City staff responded that planning staff had been in contact with a potential buyer and that staff would follow up. Staff said the Lisowski property owner had previously declined a permanent easement, and that if the easement remained unavailable the applicant could seek variances for parking requirements; staff cautioned that variances cannot be granted until a formal application and full parking/plan details are provided and that variances must run through the planning commission.

Council and staff agreed on next steps: Tyler (city manager) said he would call Ron Lisowski and follow up the next morning and asked staff to provide an update to Gaither. Kelly (planning staff) explained that city staff had asked the neighboring owner about access and that staff would pursue follow‑up and send an update to the applicant. Staff advised Gaither and the potential buyer that obtaining an easement from a private landowner could not be forced by the city; the alternatives discussed included securing an access agreement or submitting an application and pursuing variances.

Why it matters: The comments highlight developer concerns about timely staff communication on pre‑application matters, the practical limits of city authority regarding private easements and the interplay between site access and use approvals. The council and staff committed to faster follow‑up.

What’s next: City staff will contact Ron Lisowski and the applicant, provide an update to Gaither, and outline options if an easement cannot be obtained (seek variances, additional pre‑application work).