Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Minutes — August 9, 2012 <br />Page 4 <br />Gwynn added that he is not comfortable with Burr's request to remove most of the conditions. <br />He stated that the conditions that were added were done to protect the City Code as well as make <br />Mr. Burr comply with the Site Plan that was approved in 2007. A couple of the conditions were <br />just modified to accommodate the items that Mr. Burr was proposing. <br />Arcand stated that he would not be comfortable removing any of the conditions. <br />Kleissler agreed with Arcand. She asked if the spaces striped on the site plan were usable spaces <br />in the future. <br />Bryan responded by saying that the spaces would not be accessible with the placement of the <br />storage abutting them. He stated that the condition pertaining to the parking spaces is there to <br />protect the City Code, and a reasonable solution to address the parking requirement when <br />necessary. He also stated that the business does not need the spaces there now, nor in the near <br />future. <br />Arcand asked if there was a timeline in place to get these items completed. <br />Bryan stated there is no timeline in place yet, although it can be addressed at the time that the <br />permits are issued for the remainder of the site. <br />Kleissler asked if it was reasonable to ask for compensation for the size of the landscaping that <br />was originally approved for the rear screening to ensure the storage is screened adequately. <br />Bryan stated that that is a possibility. He stated that this can be reviewed in more detail. <br />Rosenquist asked if a timeline can be established to install the landscaping. <br />Bryan answered Yes. <br />Rosenquist stated that the process has been dragged out for awhile and he wants the issues of <br />noise and sight to be addressed. <br />Kleissler asked if there was any flexibility with putting the booth inside and compensating with <br />additional exterior storage. <br />Bryan responded by saying that the City has talked with the applicant about this as a solution but <br />the applicant stated it was not the best solution. Bryan stated that the Planning Commissioners <br />have a couple options in addressing this request. They can deny the request, approve the request <br />the applicant has made or approve the request with the conditions listed in the CUP. <br />Arcand asked if there was an expiration date for the CUP. <br />Bryan stated that there is no expiration dates with CUPS because they run with the land. <br />Rosenquist asked Mr. Burr if he considered moving the sandblasting booth indoors in the future. <br />Burr responded saying things may change to consider that. He also stated that he has considered <br />moving his business out of Hugo. He stated that denying his request would cost his business <br />jobs. October 17th will be the day that he will stop sandblasting outdoors. <br />Arcand asked if Mr. Burr had a problem complying with the conditions listed in the CUP. <br />Burr responded No. He does not believe everything will be completed right away, but it will be <br />done. <br />Arcand asked what was reasonable for the landscaping. <br />