Laserfiche WebLink
<br />by means of tree plantings in the front of the property and a storage area that would be <br />located behind an existing building. <br /> <br />3. In late summer of 2006, the City staff was contacted by a Councilmember regarding a <br />complaint on the subject property. In response to this, staff sent a letter to Mr. Bimer <br />dated September 6, 2006 (attached) requesting a meeting. <br /> <br />4. Mr. Bimer contacted staff and on October 19, 2006 a meeting was held on site to review <br />the conditions that were outlined in the conditional use permit. The key item absent on <br />the site were trees that was specified as follows: "The outdoor storage be located behind <br />the existing storage building, and six evergreen trees with a minimum height of 6 - 8 feet <br />be planted for screening." It was explained to staff that they were in the process of <br />having ordered their evergreen trees, and as shown on the photographs dated November <br />13m, the trees were installed and are in excess of what was required (the applicant planted <br />between 12 - 15 evergreen tress with a height of 10 - 12 feet). Based on the trees being <br />planted, it appeared that the spirit and intent of the conditional use permit was met and <br />that the type of equipment being stored on the property is the same as in the Exhibit A <br />conditional use permit list that was presented to the City Council on October 18, 2004. <br />Subsequent to this, staff has had a number of discussions with the Kunzas', the resident <br />neighbor, and discussed that from an administrative standpoint, there is no additional <br />action the City could take. In the Kunza's Febmaty 19, 2007 letter to the Council, there <br />were a number of concerns that were expressed. Staff's comments regarding these <br />concerns are as follows: <br /> <br />a. The large berm that is located on the property - City Ordinances do not <br />prohibit a property owner from constructing a large berm on their property, <br />unless it violates a development plan or causes some other type of drainage issue <br />for surrounding properties. No development plan exists for this property nor <br />are there any drainage issues associated with the same; therefore, this is not an <br />issues violation with the conditional use permit nor of any existing City <br />ordinances. <br /> <br />b. Common access" One of the major concerns for this property is the potential <br />damage caused by a common access road shared between Bimer's and the <br />Kunza's. The conditional use permit does not address the shared driveway and <br />this, and any issues associated with the driveway, appears to be a private matter <br />and does not come under City review. <br /> <br />c. The issue of stockpiling dirt on this property - Staff is of the opinion that <br />there are times when dirt is brought in and out of this property which becomes <br />problematic as an enforcement issue. The allowance of the equipment as <br />specified in the conditional use permit triggers day to day activities, and in turn, <br />problems such as stockpiling dirt or other materials may occur from time to time, <br />but is difficult to enforce from a staff resource perspective. Staff views that if <br />there is any violation of the conditional use permit, the stockpiling of the dirt is a <br />violation and should be discontinued. <br /> <br />S:\PLANNING\Case Files\2004\CU04-24 Bitner\02 23 07 cc memo.doc <br />