05-13-2004 Planning Comm. Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 13, 2004 The Code Enforcement Officer indicated that the revised site plan had mistakenly been placed in the original CUP file for the property. The Code Enforcement Officer reported that after visiting the site and talking with Mr. Sedaghat, she found the revised site plan and informed him of this. That site plan is in the Commission's agenda this evening. The Officer indicated that during her conversations with Mr. Sedaghat he acknow]edged that he was not going to have an engineer do a drainage analysis of his property as had been discussed at the initial Planning Commission meeting last fall. Duray indicated that it appears if the storage area in the back is regraded, the standing water problems will be resolved and there will be no problem storing vehicles in this area. Peterson indicated that the property has been rega~'ded three times. Due to the poor soils on the property, the water problems reoccur. Peterson indicated that there are historic water problems i^ this area given the area was filled with fly ash. Peterson indicated that regrading the site will not resolve the drainage problems. She indicated that they can regrade the site, but questioned who should bear the expense of doing so. Barraclough asked if fill was added on the three occasions that the site was graded, and the last time the site was graded. Peterson replied that the slope of the property was adjusted, and the last grading occurred the summer before last. Wojcik pointed out the report prepared by the Public Works Director after visiting the site on May 11'x'. Wojcik noted that there were heavy storms just prior to that visit, and noted that the Public Works Director did not observe much standing water. Peterson indicated that they utilize a sump pump to pump standing water on the property into their building and down into the storm sewer. Sedaghat indicated that the property is so wet in the back that they use tires and pallets to get around in the back yard- Barraclough noted that the reason this matter was tabled last fall is because the applicant requested additional time to have his own engineering study done in order to refute the study done by the City Engineer. Barraclough pointed out that the applicant is indicating that regrading the site will not work, but they have submitted nothing to substantiate this claim. Sedaghat pointed out that the property has been regraded three times and the water problem reoccurs. -S-