07.01 - Conditional Use Permit Application for Auto Rental in the Commercial Zone - by Doty Auto Company

Home Browse Search

7. The expanded uses are not expected to significantly increase traffic or parking needs. 8. According to the applicant, all hazardous materials produced by the expanded service center will be stored on-site and removed by a third parry for treatment. 9. Water demand and waste treatment is handled on-site and, therefore, will not affect municipal facilities. 10. The proposed use is not within the shoreland zone and is not visible from public waters, The Commission further recommends that the following conditions be included in a motion to approve: 1. All hazardous waste from the automobile service center shall be stored and disposed of properly. 2. An audible alarm will be installed on the holding tank. There was an additional recommendation from the Planning Commission on the Final Plat for Evergreen Third Addition. The Commission approved the final plat contingent on submission of a title opinion. They directed staff not to forward the recommendation to the City Council unless the title opinion was received. Representatives of Arvig Evergreen LLC were present and acknowledged the need to submit the title opinion. Unfortunately, we have not received the document. Hopefully you will have this recommendation forwarded to you for your August meeting. Select members of the Planning Commission and the City Council continue to work on final wording for the Comprehensive Plan. We have completed review of all but the final sections of the plan and are hopeful to have the draft back to you by your next meeting. If you would like to review the recommended changes, you can obtain them from City Hall or view them on-line at www.communitywrowth.com. We also wanted to alert the City Council to an application made by Gerald Foley and Kimberly Shields for a metes and bounds subdivision(lot split). This issue has been in front of the Planning Commission in one form or another since the fall of 2003. At our June meeting, a proposal was submitted that met the City's ordinance and it was subsequently approved by the Planning Commission. Apparently, the legal and survey terms that were used on the certificate of survey and in the staff report were not completely understood by the applicants or the adjacent property owner, who is deeding property to the City to accommodate the split. Since the approval, we have spoken to numerous property owners, realtors and an attorney in an attempt to help everyone understand the situation. There is a lot of concern and we anticipate they will be back to the Planning Commission in July to clear things up. The Council does not review metes and bounds subdivisions.