Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MAY 13, 2004 <br />Valor property has been impacted by decisions that were made prior to <br />their purchase of the property. <br />Barraclough noted the Public Works Director's report pointing out that the <br />property owner has options that eliminate the need for a variance. <br />Rheaume suggested that if previous grading has not been effective it may <br />be due to the quality of work that was done. Peterson indicated that these <br />contractors have informed them that due to the soils in the area, regrading <br />of the site is a waste of time and money. <br />Peterson also indicated that the site plan approved in the original CUP <br />process allows for Class V materials on a portion of the property. <br />Duray asked for a description of the storage closets being proposed. <br />Peterson indicated that these are storage bins with hinged lids that will <br />allow for an orderly storage of recyclable materials. They are proposed to <br />be located on the south side of the building. <br />Duray indicated that he was not in favor of the Amendment to CUP or the <br />Variance as the applicant has not shown that the property cannot be used <br />as approved under the original CUP and site plan. Knudsen agreed and <br />pointed out that the matter was tabled last fall to allow the applicant time <br />to have an engineering report done on site drainage. The applicant chose <br />not to have the report done. <br />Duray recommended denial of the Amendment to Conditional Use Permit <br />to modify the site plan for Valor Enterprises as well as recommended <br />denial of a Variance from the City's parking requirements for property at <br />3165-3167 Spruce Street on the basis that the applicant has presented no <br />information refuting the City Engineer's and Public Works Director's <br />reports which indicate that filling and regrading of the property will <br />resolve existing drainage problems, and noting that resolution of drainage <br />problems negate the need for an Amended CUP and a Variance, and <br />further noting that there is no hardship present that warrants granting the <br />Variance. <br />Motion seconded by Wojcik. <br />Motion carried 6 - 0. <br />AMENDMENT The City Planner reported that the applicant has requested that the <br />TO CUP AND Commission table action on the Amendment to CUP and the Variance <br />VARIANCE - until the June planning cycle to allow him more time for additional <br />-10- <br />