6.1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• 1990 and 1989 respectively. The permits had a number of conditions attached to them. In 1992, Janelle Szklarski inspected the site in accordance with the two year review of conditional use permits and found four conditions that were not met. I have attached a copy of her letter dated July 1, 1992. In late August 1995, a complaint was received that the property still had not met its CUP conditions. Staff inspected the property and found that there were still three conditions not met: 1. The 5 mph speed limit signs were not posted on either lot 2. The "exit only" and "enter only" signs were not installed on either lot 3. The planting of nine (9) trees on Lot 2 and ten (10) trees on Lot 3, according to the drainage plans, was not yet completed I sent Mr. Rohlf a letter asking him to comply with the remaining three conditions prior to October 1, 1995. I reinspected after that date and found that the three conditions were still not met. I called Mr. Rohlf and agreed to meet him at the site to look at the trees and discuss his CUP conditions. Mr. Rohlf feels that he has met the tree requirements, but that the signage requirements are unfair and should be removed from his CUP conditions. Mr. Rohlf addressed the Council during the open mike section of its October 16, ill 1995 meeting, requesting that Council amend his CUP so that he will not be required to place the signs on his property or add any more trees. Attorney Peter Beck indicated that a CUP amendment would be needed to amend the conditional use permits. Since the October 16th Council meeting, Mr. Rohlf and I inspected his site together. He pointed out 10 trees he planted on Lot 3 and 11 trees that he planted on Lot 2. His CUP required that he plant 19 trees on the lots. The City Ordinance requires that the site have a total of 25 trees. With credit for existing trees plus the 21 he planted Mr. Rohlf has an adequate number of trees on the lots. However, it should be noted that the City Ordinance and Mr. Rohlfs CUP both mention that specific kinds of trees be planted--Mr. Rohlf did not follow those requirements. The Ordinance also specifies the minimum size of trees, and several of Mr. Rohlfs trees do not meet those minimum requirements. I have attached a copy of the landscaping requirements from Section 900.30(4)(B)(iii) of the City Ordinance. The ordinance also states that it is the responsibility of the property owner to replace any dead trees. If any of Mr. Rohlfs trees do die, he must replace the • trees with trees that meet the City standards. Also, not more than 50% of the trees may be of one species. Since most of the trees on the site are now willows, S:\PLANNING\KENDRA\CU95-28.D O C