Laserfiche WebLink
Regular Planning CommissionMeeting <br />Minutes –Wednesday, March 2, 2016 <br /> <br />Page 36 <br />and uncertain to the Commission in areas as noted, including the nature of the <br />1775 <br />easement and whether it is feasible toplace the fence along the northern edge of <br />1776 <br />the property or where the fence could be placed closest to the northern edge of the <br />1777 <br />property line. <br />1778 <br />Ayes: 4 (Stellmach, Cunningham, Boguszewski, Gitzen) <br />1779 <br />Nays: 3(Murphy, Daire, Bull) <br />1780 <br />Motion carried <br />1781 <br />Member Dairestated that he was extraordinarily frustrated withthismotion to table; <br />1782 <br />opining that the Vogels and neighbors needed closure. <br />1783 <br />For the record, Member Bull noted that while the Interim Use permit was still in effect, <br />1784 <br />moving to table this request and attempting to bring a new commissioner up-to-speed for <br />1785 <br />the next meeting without a history or background of this situation was unfair.Member Bull <br />1786 <br />also noted the unfairness to those residents having provided their input tonight and <br />1787 <br />asking them to return again in April. <br />1788 <br />Chair Boguszewski recognized the frustration expressed by his colleagues. <br />1789 <br />Member Murphy agreed that both sides needed closure; and if the role of the <br />1790 <br />Commission was that of the City Council it would be different.However, Member Murphy <br />1791 <br />noted that the Planning Commission’s role was to make recommendations to the City <br />1792 <br />Council; and therefore, delaying this action will surface no new data that hasn’t already <br />1793 <br />been considered.In addressing Member Bull’s comment that the Interim Use permit was <br />1794 <br />in place and Vogels could continue to do business under it, Member Murphy opined that <br />1795 <br />it totally ignored their financial consideration in moving forward for additional funding. <br />1796 <br />Member Murphy opined that the Commission owed the neighbors and property owner a <br />1797 <br />conclusion. <br />1798 <br />Member Bull opined that, now with zoning changes in place and this as a permitted use <br />1799 <br />with or without a conditional use permit, Member Bull opined that with the office use in <br />1800 <br />place, the Vogels should easily satisfy their financing needs. <br />1801 <br />Other Business <br />6. <br />1802 <br />Review and Acceptance of the Zoning Notification Task Force Recommendations <br />1803 <br />MOTION <br />1804 <br />Due to time constraints, Member Boguszewskimoved, seconded by Member Cunningham <br />1805 <br />to TABLE consideration of the Zoning Notification Task Force recommendations to the <br />1806 <br />next meeting of the Planning Commission (April 6, 2016). <br />1807 <br />Ayes: 7 <br />1808 <br />Nays:0 <br />1809 <br />Motion carried. <br />1810 <br />Adjourn <br />7. <br />1811 <br />In honor of his last meeting, Chair Boguszewski invited Member Stellmach to move to adjourn <br />1812 <br />tonight’s meeting. <br />1813 <br />MOTION <br />1814 <br />Member Stellmachmoved, seconded by Member Cunninghamto adjourn the meeting at <br />1815 <br />11:59 p.m. <br />1816 <br />Ayes: 7 <br />1817 <br />Nays: 0 <br />1818 <br />Motion carried. <br />1819 <br /> <br />