OPEN MIKE 02-20-2007
HCtridmd- a/3D/en
Ly:rn (tZ(liL
I am here this evening to speak on concerns regarding the Conditional use Permit for
Home Occupation, granted to Mr. Dean Bittner--- Case No. CU04-24 Issued on
Oct.l6th 2004.
These concerns are dealing with the conditions ORDERED by the CITY COUNCIL for
the owner to comply to allow the granting of the permit.
1. The outdoor storage be located behind the existing storage building and 6 Evergreen
trees with a minimum height of 6-8 feet be planted for screening.
a) His storage area for equipment is not in the back it is off to the
side (south) of the building. This is also the area where the owner has con-
structed a berm approximately the length of a football field and 20 ft high.
The construction of this berm took endless trips by enddumps to provide the
material. Where and When was the owner given permission to bulldoze
this material into a berm?
2. The applicant shall provide a list of oversize vehicleslheavy equipment currently used
for the operation of his business, and that an increase in this number will require a
review of the Conditional Use Permit.
a) I want to refer back to statements made by the owner at the first meeting held
on Sept. 28th, 2004
1) Dump truck seldom used. It is now in use several times a day also
pulling a trailer with equipment on it and the truck is usually full of fill.
2) He drives 3/4 ton pickup with trailer. There is now another pickup with
a trailer loaded with equipment making several trips also.
3) Owner stated the he is not storing pea gravel on site. He has stated in the
Analysis section on the Memorandum sent to Scott Harlicker, that his
outdoor storage is used for gravel used in the installation of his septic
systems. He is also stock pilling dirt, hauled frequently by his dump
truck. This dirt is dumped behind the existing storage shed in an area
visible from Twin Lakes Rd. He has been hauling this dirt out, at times
making 8-10 trips a day.
4) No materials shall be stored outside.
We would like terms product and materials more clearly defined. We feel that with the
product or materials being stored on site has greatly increased the number of vehicles and
trips made up and down the driveway. Also in Exhibit A, items 1 & 3 deal with outside
storage and Item 4 states No Materials shall be stored outside. This is very confusing.
Twin Lakes Elementary is about 1/4 mile east of our driveway and the traffic has
increased dramatically already and the school isn't even open yet. With all of these trucks
and trailers from Mr. Bittner's business the possibility of an accident happening will
increase.
We have a shared paved driveway which we own and he has an easement to use. The
easement was agreed upon when he was purchasing the residential property. With his
equipment fleet increasing and running a commercial business on this driveway isn't
what I had in mind for the easement.
We brought our concerns to the Planning Commision in 2004 and then they notified him
of being Non Compliant. He applied for the Conditional Use Permit, which was granted
, .
and everything has been going his way since. We have had very poor -communication with
the Planning Department since then, and weren't informed about several items in this
process. Phone calls went unanswered. If he was a conscientious neighbor none of this
would have went this far. He does what he wants to do. The point that I am trying to
make is the person making the complaint in this case felt very frustrated.
He came to a residential area and is running a commercial business, that's growing.
With this going on next door, I don't think it's helped our property value, and hope
that the the only solution is not to move.
I expect a reply in a timely manner of our concerns brought to you regarding the areas
of non-conpliance by Mr. Bittner.
J~: --kr'TL( _LU()(a. .
I [i .:S J 3' -it I! r7.. IJc/{E s I'd