My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-13-2004 Planning Comm. Agenda
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
05-13-2004 Planning Comm. Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/16/2008 10:06:54 AM
Creation date
7/16/2008 9:24:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
121
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES <br />PLANNING CONINI[SSION <br />NOVEN.IBER 13, 2003 <br />very back of the lot. The Engineer noted that this is similar to what was <br />done by the bus company directly north of the Valor property. <br />Peterson disagreed with the Engineer's f ndings, and indicated that they <br />have had the property graded three times, and the drainage problems have <br />continued. <br />Fred Sedaghat, Valor Enterprises, indicated that the City Engineer spent <br />five minutes on the property and this was not adequate time to determine <br />the cause of the drainage problems. Sedaghat suggested he would have to <br />get his own engineer to do a drainage review of the site. <br />I{eis pointed out that there are other issues to be considered in addition to <br />the drainage issues. These include the number of required parking spots, <br />the location of the retail sales lot, the number of repairable vehicles that <br />can be stored, as well as outdoor storage in general. <br />Peterson reported that they have complied with all previous requirements <br />made by the City. <br />The City Planner indicated that the Code requires that Che sales lot must be <br />paved as well as off=street parking areas and drive aisles. Surfacing of <br />storage areas can be Class V. <br />Keis asked what cars are being stored in the fenced-in lot. Sedaghat <br />replied that employee cars and customer cars that have been sold and are <br />waiting to be picked up are in the fenced-in area. <br />Keis pointed out that the City previously required the sales lot to be <br />located in the back because sales were by appointment only and there was <br />no need to have that lot in the front. However, due to drainage problems, <br />the applicant is now requesting the sales lot be moved to the front in the <br />fenced-in area. Peterson replied that that was correct- <br />T{eis indicated that the original CUP limited Che number of cars for sale to <br />20. The Planner also pointed out that the Code requires the property have <br />30 paved parking spaces. I{eis noted that if the applicant feels 30 paved <br />pat~king spaces are too many because of the nature of the business, they <br />can do a proof of parking and set aside the equivalent area in green space <br />for paving in the future at the time the parking is needed. <br />Knudsen indicated that it made no difference to him if the sales lot was <br />located in the front of the property or in the back Keis agreed, but <br />indicated that he did not support increasing the cumber of vehicles held <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.