2015-08-05_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, July 1, 2015 Page 8 Member Dairequestioned if that would allow the applicant to still marketthe site with that 353 drive-through potential already in process. 354 Mr. Paschke noted that this could indicate to potential tenants the possibility for approval, 355 and a record of their hesitancy in doing so without a tenant being secured. 356 Member Gitzen stated he would be more comfortable with a known tenant; however, he 357 expressed his confidence hat sufficient conditions were in place or available to monitor a 358 future tenant. 359 In referencing page 5, lines 159 –164 of the staff report, Chair Boguszewski suggested 360 additional language to screen headlights on the south and east portions of the property in 361 addition to the west side. 362 To that point, Member Bull expressed concern in not addressing screening of a sufficient 363 size to address headlights. 364 Member Cunningham noted her concern went beyond just headlights, but also with other 365 lights on site, such as from a menu board; and suggested revising the condition to 366 state…”any other unnatural light or light created by the businesses located on this site…” 367 Chair Boguszewski questioned if there was any cause or standing to address light 368 emitting from the structure itself but not caused by or related to the drive-through issue 369 before the body as a Conditional Use. 370 Member Daire questioned if menu boards had a higher candle light at the edge of the 371 property, or if they met criteria currently used. 372 Given the potential for continuous impulse lighting from the site, Member Bull opined with 373 all the other unknowns, he was inclined not to support this request. 374 Chair Boguszewski addressedthe three options before the Commission: to recommend 375 City Council approval; to recommend City Council denial; or for the Commission to 376 CONTINUE the request until a potential tenant is identified and more specific details 377 allow for staff’s analysis, at which time the approval process could be reinstated, and 378 returned to the Commission for their recommendation to the City Council at that time. 379 Member Murphy questioned what a continuation meant to the timeframe of this request. 380 Mr. Paschke advised he would need to research the ramifications created by such a 381 continuation as it related to the 60-day approval period and when an actual tenant may 382 be known.Mr. Paschke noted the City’s ability to extend the application by an additional 383 60-days as indicated in thestaff report; as well as the applicant’s ability to extend the 384 process, both in writing, and essentially stopping the 60-day clock at that point. 385 At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Paschke clarified that the action of the Commission 386 was specific to the drive-through, not building occupancy or remodeling for Sun Control’s 387 use of the building and should notprevent those steps from going forward. 388 Chair Boguszewski opined that, to-date the Planning Commission had a history of 389 approving drive-throughs, and recognizing the trade-off for citizens and businesses; and 390 historically sympathetic to the drive-through concept if and when scaled appropriately.If 391 the decision tonight by the Commission is to CONTINUE this request, Chair Boguszewski 392 sought to clarify thatit should be in no way interpreted as potentially being a future denial 393 based on that history. 394 At the request of Member Bull, Chair Boguszewski clarified, with concurrence by Mr. 395 Paschke that if the Commission CONTINUED this it would be at the Planning 396 Commission leveland until the Commission took definitive action to make a 397 recommendation to the City Council, the continuation would be only at this level.If and 398 when a tenant is identified, Chair Boguszewski noted that the applicant would then return 399 to the Commission and the issue could be taken up where left off. 400