2015-07-01_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 1, 2015 Page 6 example, Mr. Jensen noted that they did a number of police vehicles used for canine use, 252 as well as other retail applications as well; with each average four-door sedan taking 3-4 253 hours, with perhaps 4-5 completed per day; and reiterated that a considerable amount of 254 business was performed off-site. 255 Given the success of their business, Mr. Rustad noted that Sun Control had outgrown 256 their current commercial space. 257 Public Comment 258 Polly West, 194 County Road B-2 West 259 Ms. West stated her biggest concern was that there were no established operating hours 260 for these potential tenants; and with the current business at this site having gone out of 261 business, any new use brought immediate concerns with noise, light or car pollution. 262 Also, Ms. West expressed concern about light pollution if a potential drive-through 263 operated late at night, it would negatively impact those residents directly across from the 264 entry on County Road B-2. 265 Ms. West also noted existing and frequent traffic back-ups at the intersection; and 266 expressed concern with the pond area and grass with wildlife that may be negatively 267 impacted with a future use. 268 Member Cunningham asked Ms. West if her concerns were specific to the drive-through 269 use or building tenants in general. 270 Ms. West responded that the only tenant she know about and their operating hours as 271 stated by Mr. Jensen were acceptable. However, Ms. West opined that commercial also 272 needed to interact with residents on an equal basis. Ms. West admitted the drive-through 273 concerned her, especially related to traffic flow in this area, and the lack of information 274 available at this point in time. While staff assures that there will be no McDonald’s as a 275 possible use, Ms. West asked what about a smaller use such as Burger King or similar 276 use; what was considered smaller; and the potential number of cars that could back-up 277 significantly. Ms. West also expressed concern with the safety of students at the adjacent 278 daycare center. 279 Member Cunningham sought to clarify that Ms. West’s concerns were more related to a 280 drive-through rather than general concerns with the property itself. 281 Ms. West responded that there was already so much noise pollution and speed on that 282 corner. 283 Chair Boguszewski closed the public hearing at 7:27 p.m.; no one else spoke for or 284 against. 285 Member Cunningham expressed her confusion about this application, opining that the 286 points brought up were legitimate and the role of the Planning Commission in looking at 287 traffic patterns and potential impact to a neighborhood. While appreciating the intentions 288 of the owner, Member Cunningham noted that an unfortunate lesson learned by this body 289 was that sometimes intentions didn’t become reality. Member Cunningham expressed 290 concerns with the unknowns, and sought input from her colleagues. 291 At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Paschke clarified that Conditional Uses, like 292 Variances, are recorded against a property and are in effect until the City abolishes or 293 eliminates them. At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Paschke confirmed that by granting 294 a Conditional Use for a potential drive-through use, it would assist the applicant as an 295 additional selling point for future tenants. 296 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Paschke clarified that the building is now 297 owned by Mr. Rustad, not Sun Control, and the Conditional Use would be granted to the 298 current owner and transfer with the title of the property, and recorded against that 299 property. 300 As an additional nuance, Mr. Lloyd noted that, with approval of a Conditional Use, it must 301 be executed by the property owner within one year; and if the drive-through was not 302