Laserfiche WebLink
E lls <br />River` <br />Request for Action <br />To <br />Item Number <br />Planning Commission <br />5.1 <br />Agenda Section <br />Meeting Date <br />Prepared by <br />Public Hearings <br />January 24, 2017 <br />Chris Leeseberg, Senior Planner <br />Item Description <br />Reviewed by <br />Northern Tiny Builder, Inc. (75- 013 -1412) <br />Zack Carlton, Planning Manager <br />■ Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor <br />storage of vehicles, tiny homes; bus and trailer <br />Reviewed by <br />maintenance and repair; and a residential use, <br />Case No. CU 16 -35 <br />Action Requested <br />Recommend, by motion, denial of the Conditional Use Permit for the following reason: <br />1. All seven conditions for issuance of a Conditional Use Permit have not been met. <br />Background /Discussion <br />This item was brought before the Planning Commission on December 27, 2016, with direction to open <br />the public hearing, take comments, and continue the public hearing until January 24, 2017. <br />It was also brought before the City Council on January 17, 2017, with direction to open the public <br />hearing, take comments, and continue the public hearing until February 21, 2017. <br />Staff had been working with the applicant to obtain more detailed information about the proposal. The <br />information requested included detailed plans showing driveway location and materials, concrete curb and <br />gutter locations, topography and drainage information, septic and well locations, and setbacks/ <br />dimensions. Staff was also seeking clarification regarding whether or not someone will be living on the <br />site and if so, how all eight of the requirements in Sec. 30 -1295 (d) (16) will be met. <br />Timeline <br />On December 12, 2016, the applicant was mailed the Conditional Use Permit Site Plan Review Letter <br />(Letter) and the Letter was also attached in an email sent on the same day. <br />On December 20, 2016, staff emailed the applicant informing him the city had not received any of the <br />requested information in the Letter and because of that, we would be postponing his application for a <br />month. <br />On January 6, 2017, staff emailed the applicant indicating the city required the information in order to <br />complete the review, as indicated in the Letter, no later than January 17, 2017. The Letter was again <br />attached. <br />On January 10, 2017, the applicant was mailed a 60 Day Extension Letter and it was also attached in an <br />email sent on the same day. <br />4A UR <br />