Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />APRIL 8, 1999 <br />Knudsen pointed out option of allowing an office use for the towing <br />company as well as the ability to park tow trucks with no storage allowed <br />for towed vehicles. Carle agreed that was an option. <br />Montour asked what has changed since Mr. Carle was before the Planning <br />Commission in March. Carle replied that not much had changed. He <br />indicated that he has taken care of the code enforcement issues on the <br />property relative to signage and has had a survey of the property done. As <br />far as the towed vehicles, if the City does not approve their storage on the <br />site, Swift Towing will have to remove them. Swift Towing would like to <br />pursue the office use and the ability to park their tow trucks on the <br />property. Carle indicated that Swift Towing would like to operate the <br />impound lot, but that does not seem to be a possibility from the City's <br />standpoint. <br />Knudsen reported that the issue is what type of use the City is looking for <br />in that area. If the impound lot were approved, Knudsen felt the City's <br />position was weakened relative to control over the uses in the area. <br />Knudsen stated that he would not be opposed to an office use that included <br />the parking of Swift's tow trucks. Knudsen noted that the cars that are <br />parked on the property look pretty rough. <br />Duray asked what Mr. Carle was asking of the Planning Commission this <br />evening. <br />Carle stated that given he is certain the impound lot would not be <br />approved, he was asking for approval of the office use which would <br />include the parking of Swift's tow trucks. <br />The City Planner indicated that given there is already office use occurring <br />on the property, the office use by Swift Towing would be allowed. <br />Parking for the tow trucks is a new use and would require an amendment <br />to the existing CUP. <br />Carson asked about paving. Carle indicated that if the property would be <br />required to be paved because of the tow truck parking, he would not have <br />the trucks parked on his property. The Code Enforcement Officer noted <br />that under the 1983 CUP for this property, Class V materials were <br />approved for the driveways and employee parking. If the 1983 CUP is <br />maintained, Class V could be used. If the CUP is amended, than the <br />paving requirement kicks in. <br />Carle indicated that he may proceed with the CUP amendment if he were <br />given a period of time within which to do the paving. <br />Page 28 <br />