Laserfiche WebLink
Regular Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, June 5, 2013 <br />Page 2 <br />City Planner Thomas Paschke summarized the request of Mueller-Bies Funeral Homes <br />46 <br />seeking approval of a Comprehensive Plan land use map change, zoning map change <br />47 <br />and parcel consolidation as detailed in the staff report dated June 5, 2013; to facilitate <br />48 <br />plans to purchase an adjacent residential property and consolidate it with the main <br />49 <br />property for the purpose of expanding the funeral home’s parking area. Mr. Paschke <br />50 <br />noted that the parcel consolidation could be approved by the City Council without a public <br />51 <br />hearing but for the other essential aspects of the overall proposal, detailed in Section 4.0 <br />52 <br />of the report. <br />53 <br />The Planning Division recommended approval of the proposed changes as outlined. <br />54 <br />Member Stellmach asked if there had been any comment from owners of the properties <br />55 <br />at 592 or 580 regarding the proposal; with Mr. Paschke responding that none had been <br />56 <br />received other than the one contained in Section 6.0 of the report from a nearby <br />57 <br />commercial business in support of the request. Mr. Paschke noted that the proposal <br />58 <br />seemed to be supported, as it provided no questionable intrusion in to a residential <br />59 <br />neighborhood or expanded use into low density residential. <br />60 <br />Member Olsen shared his recent observations of traffic congestion on Dale Street during <br />61 <br />rush hour, and significant delays he found for south and/or north bound traffic, as well as <br />62 <br />anyone trying to exit or enter the funeral home parking lot. Member Olsen opined that this <br />63 <br />proposal seemed to him to be a “no brainer” to reduce clogging on that corridor during <br />64 <br />critical hours, and from his perspective, seemed sensible. Member Olsen expressed his <br />65 <br />appreciation for the current owner at 600 County Road B for being open to this proposal. <br />66 <br />Applicant Representative, Mod Feders of Buetow 2 Architects, Inc. <br />67 <br />Mr. Feders recognized Mueller-Bies staff, and residential neighbors in the audience, <br />68 <br />available to lend their support to the project. Mr. Feders briefly reported on the <br />69 <br />neighborhood open house and their overall support, as detailed in Attachment C of the <br />70 <br />staff report. <br />71 <br />At the request of Chair Gisselquist, Mr. Feders reviewed the projected timeline if the <br />72 <br />application was approved, with the desire to demolish the residential structure yet this <br />73 <br />year, with construction anticipated to start in the spring of 2014 – weather permitting. <br />74 <br />At the request of Chair Gisselquist, Mr. Paschke confirmed that the proposal had been <br />75 <br />reviewed by other City Departments, including the Public Works Department, with several <br />76 <br />issues brought up and some resolved or adjustments made; with engineering drawings <br />77 <br />pending. <br />78 <br />At the request of Chair Gisselquist, Mr. Paschke further confirmed that storm water <br />79 <br />management for the expanded site would be required to meet both Watershed District <br />80 <br />and City Code requirements. <br />81 <br />Public Comment <br />82 <br />Chair Gisselquist closed the Public Hearing at 6:48 p.m.; no one spoke for or against. <br />83 <br />MOTION <br />84 <br />Member Olsen moved, seconded by Member Boguszewski to recommend to the <br />85 <br />City Council APPROVAL of the proposed RECOMBINATION MINOR SUBDIVISION, <br />86 <br />COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP CHANGE, AND ZONING MAP CHANGE; <br />87 <br />based on the comments and findings of Sections 4-6 and the recommendation of <br />88 <br />Section 7 of the staff report dated June 5, 2013. <br />89 <br />As noted by Mr. Paschke, Member Boguszewski stated that the most salient factor to him <br />90 <br />was the current zoning for residential apartments; and that there were few remaining <br />91 <br />single-family homes in this area. Member Boguszewski noted that this eliminated any <br />92 <br />concerns that the zoning change would encroach into a large residential area; and <br />93 <br />recognized, in his support of the motion, that the gradual change and character of that <br />94 <br />area was moving more toward a commercial orientation. <br />95 <br /> <br />