05-13-2004 Planning Comm. Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 13, 2004 Knudsen pointed out that the Commission has reports fi~om the City Engineer and the Public Works Director which both state that effective fill and grading will solve the problem. Knudsen informed the applicant that he has not presented any evidence that refutes these reports. Knudsen stated that his inclination is to recommend denial of the applications and move the matter on to the City Council. Peterson questioned the rational of spending money to regrade the property again, when this has not worked in the past. Knudsen pointed out that a hardship must be present to warrant granting a variance. Last fall the Planning Commission tabled action on the CiJP amendment and the Variance in order to give the applicant an opportunity to have an engineering report done that would show a systematic issue with the soils or a hardship that would justify the variance. However, the applicant has chosen not to have their own engineering study done. Therefore, there is no evidence refuting the City Engineer's or the Public Works Director's reports. Knudsen stated, that as a result, it was not appropriate to continue to table action on these items. Peterson stated that she apologized if there was a misunderstanding, but she did not realize that this is how the issue had been left last fall. Knudsen pointed out that the City has reports from the City Engineer and the Public Works Director which state that the regrading of the property will resolve the drainage problems. The Commission has no tangible evidence refuting these findings. Therefore, the Commmission must rely on the engineering data it has. Sedaghat asked if he regrades the property and the water problem is not resolved if the City of Little Canada will pay all the expenses. Sedaghat again pointed out that the property has been regraded three times. Knudsen pointed out that the Commission has no information on the extent of the grading that has been done in the past. He noted that there is no hardship here that would serve as a basis for granting a variance. Duray stated that he realizes that grading is expensive, however, he pointed out that property maintenance is part of the cost of operating a business. Duray also pointed out that if the back area of the property can be used, there is no need for the variance being requested. Peterson indicated that parC of the drainage problems on the Valor property are the result of site improvements made by adjacent property owners which were approved by the City. Peterson indicated that the -9-