2015-08-05_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, July 1, 2015 Page 6 those vans leaving at 8:00 a.m. and not returning until approximately 4:30 p.m.As an 252 example, Mr. Jensen noted that they did a number of police vehicles used for canine use, 253 as well as other retail applications as well; with each average four-door sedan taking 3-4 254 hours, with perhaps 4-5 completed per day; and reiterated that a considerable amount of 255 business was performed off-site. 256 Given the success of their business, Mr. Rustad noted that Sun Control had outgrown 257 their current commercial space. 258 Public Comment 259 Polly West, 194 County Road B-2West 260 Ms. West stated her biggest concern was that there were no established operating hours 261 for these potential tenants; and with the current business at this site having gone out of 262 business, any new use brought immediate concerns with noise, light or car pollution. 263 Also, Ms. West expressed concern about light pollution if a potential drive-through 264 operated late at night, it would negatively impact those residents directly across from the 265 entry on County Road B-2. 266 Ms. West also noted existing and frequent traffic back-ups at the intersection; and 267 expressed concern with the pond area and grass with wildlife that may be negatively 268 impacted with a future use. 269 Member Cunningham asked Ms. West if her concerns were specific to the drive-through 270 use or building tenants in general. 271 Ms. West responded that the only tenant she know about and their operating hours as 272 stated by Mr. Jensen were acceptable.However, Ms. Westopined that commercial also 273 needed to interact with residents on an equal basis.Ms. West admitted the drive-through 274 concerned her, especially related to traffic flow in this area, and the lack of information 275 available at this point in time.While staff assures that there will be no McDonald’s as a 276 possible use, Ms. West asked what about a smaller use such as Burger King or similar 277 use; what was considered smaller; and the potential number of cars that could back-up 278 significantly.Ms. West also expressed concern with the safety of students at the adjacent 279 daycare center. 280 Member Cunningham sought to clarify that Ms. West’s concerns were more related to a 281 drive-through rather than general concerns with the property itself. 282 Ms. West responded that there was already so much noise pollution and speed on that 283 corner. 284 Chair Boguszewski closed the public hearing at 7:27 p.m.;no one else spokefor or 285 against. 286 Member Cunningham expressed her confusion about this application, opining that the 287 points brought up were legitimate and the role of the Planning Commission in looking at 288 traffic patterns and potential impact to a neighborhood.While appreciating the intentions 289 of the owner, Member Cunningham noted that an unfortunate lesson learned by this body 290 was that sometimes intentions didn’t become reality.Member Cunningham expressed 291 concerns with the unknowns, and sought input from her colleagues. 292 At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Paschke clarified that Conditional Uses, like 293 Variances, are recorded against a property and in effect until the City abolishes or 294 eliminates them.At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Paschke confirmed that by granting 295 a Conditional Use for a potential drive-through use, it would assist the applicant as an 296 additional selling point for future tenants. 297 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Paschke clarified that the building is now 298 owned by Mr. Rustad, not Sun Control, and the Conditional Use would be granted to the 299 current owner and transfer with the title of the property, and recorded against that 300 property. 301