Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING CONINIISSION <br />OCTOBER 9, 2003 <br />Peterson questioned the need for paving the sales area. Keis pointed out <br />that it is an issue of compliance with the Code, and the Code requires the <br />sales area to be paved. <br />The City Planner indicated that the I-1 District allows for storage areas to <br />be surfaced in gravel or Class V. However, sales Lots are considered to be <br />parking lots and must be paved in asphalt. <br />Keis pointed out that under the previous CUP, Peterson agreed to pave the <br />sales lot and also agreed to the requirement of 29 paved parking spaces. <br />Keis noted that the sales lot was required in the rear of the property as the <br />City does not want the property to have the appearance of a retail car lot. <br />Keis noted that Peterson also indicated that car sales are conducted by <br />appointment only. <br />Peterson indicated that it is customary to have customer parking out in <br />front. Keis again pointed out that the reason the sales lot was required to <br />be in the back of the property was to prevent the appearance of a car lot. <br />Peterson indicated that after it rains the back yard area floods and becomes <br />unusable. Peterson noted that the sales lot is fenced with screening fence <br />as is the new location that is being proposed on the front of the property. <br />Peterson questioned what the difference is with moving the sales lot. She <br />further indicated that retail sales would occur by appointment only. Her <br />contention, therefore, is that nothing really is changing except the location <br />of the sales lot with that lot still to be fenced and screened. <br />Barraclough pointed out the Planner's comments that there are conditions <br />of the previous CUP approval that have not been complied with. Peterson <br />indicated that the only thing that has not been complied with is the paving <br />of the sales lot. She noted that this area is subject to flooding, therefore, <br />not an ideal location for the sales lot. That is why the request is to amend <br />the CUP to move the sales lot to the front of the property. <br />Keis pointed out that the number of cars is also an issue. Keis noted that <br />at the time of the original CUP review, the discussion was clear that the <br />City did not want the property to turn into ajunkyard. <br />Peterson again indicated that the flooding problem prevents them from <br />using the property as was approved under the original CUP. Peterson <br />indicated that paving the rear sales lot will not resolve this problem. She <br />also reported that other property owners in the area have this same <br />problem. Peterson indicated that the drainage problems began when there <br />were changes made to adjacent properties in the area. <br />-'- <br />