2015_0928_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment B building or in slight disrepair; minor repairs needed of garage doors on the north side; and overgrown weeds and grass). Mr. Paschke opined that overall the building looked fairly good with some minor repairs; and noted that other City Departments may have other infractions to address over time for things that had yet to be included or acknowledged to-date. Member Murphy noted the advertisement of electrical hook-ups, not currently in use; and opined that from his perspective, this was not a good site for refer connections, suggesting that an additional condition be applied that no electricity shall be supplied to trailers under this IU. Mr. Paschke concurred that would be a valid additional condition. At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Paschke reviewed the potential timeframe to determine if the building remained or was razed, advising that at some point the owner would determine if the upkeep was costing more than the building was worth, but suggested leaving that decision up to the property owner versus conditioning it as part of this IU. At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Paschke advised that the conditions of approval would initiate upon approval of the IU for completion within a reasonable time depending on the weather and approval process yet this fall. Member Bull sought clarification of where the trailers will actually be parked, as some are stored in the south lot next to the building, but it was also conditioned that IU approval required a property line setback of a minimum of 30' between the trailers and building. Mr. Paschke clarified that this condition was looking at those trailers parked next to the building; similar to the aerial map and was intended to address traffic flow on the site by relocating the drive lane running along the building. Mr. Paschke opined that whether or not the trailers could still be positioned there remained an unknown at this time. Chair Boguszewski suggested minor tweaking of recommended condition 1.d to clarify their location of at least 30' from the building. At the request of Member Bull, Mr. Paschke clarified staff's interpretation of the front yard requiring 70' setback; and clarified that it wasn't an arbitrary location for the front yard given the history of that site and what the City desired and did not desire in a commercial front yard. Chair Boguszewski suggested further tweaking of conditions stating "no trailer parked further west of the line drawn in front of the building requiring a 70' setback" that would prevent theoretically extending the face of the building. Member Bull asked if there was available definition of hazardous or dangerous materials with the intent to eliminate any vagueness of that requirement. While unsure of the actual definition, Mr. Paschke advised that it would address anything potentially combustible or erodible. Member Murphy noted that the Fire Marshal would be well versed in that definition and all it entailed. Regarding the "Big Blue Box" reference in the packet, Member Stellmach sought clarification of what that meant.