2016-03-02_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 2, 2016 Page 22 under CMU-1 zoning, Ms. Vogel reviewed some of the many and more intense uses that 1065 were permitted and having a much higher impact to adjacent neighbors. Ms. Vogel 1066 pleaded with the Commission to look at the broader picture and intent of their small 1067 business in attempting to bring a more diverse work force into the community. At the 1068 request of Member Bull, Ms. Vogel clarified that the rezoning to CMU-1 had only been 1069 completed by the City Council in January of 2016; and helped in addressing their 1070 application for an SBA loan. 1071 Mr. Crain noted that a condition of the SBA loan requires that the use continue for at 1072 least twenty years in concurrence with the term of the loan; but noted that an IU for only 1073 five years and no guarantee of extension was not sufficient for the SBA to approve the 1074 loan. 1075 Chair Boguszewski noted the need to move forward at this time, and explained to the 1076 applicant and public the rationale in the Commission being so intent on this due to it 1077 having a valid impact on the neighborhood and part of this discussion. As noted by Ms. 1078 Vogel earlier tonight, Chair Boguszewski agreed that much contention has arisen from 1079 the beginning of this process, which he considered to be an issue primarily about trust. 1080 From his personal perspective and in his viewing of the January 2016 Board of 1081 Adjustments and Appeals meeting of the City Council, Chair Boguszewski recognized the 1082 targeted disrespect shown by part of that Vogel team to the residential neighborhood 1083 group. While also recognizing Ms. Vogel’s apology tonight, Chair Boguszewski opined 1084 that some of that lack of trust and the questioning before this Commission may be in part 1085 based on that reality. Chair Boguszewski noted that the Vogels had retained a different 1086 attorney; and opined that some of the rationale for tonight’s questioning is to make sure 1087 everyone could move past that previous tone and apparent disrespect. During his entire 1088 time serving on the Planning Commission, Chair Boguszewski stated that he could think 1089 of no better case for the statement that “good fences make good neighbors.” Chair 1090 Boguszewski advised that it was the goal of the Commission to make sure this situation 1091 is well-balanced for all parties and that it protected existing neighbors as well. 1092 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Crain confirmed that the required condition for 1093 installation for the fence under Condition 1.A or Condition 1.C could be met by June 30, 1094 2016. 1095 Chair Boguszewski noted that the original IU condition stated that doors would remain 1096 closed, while the CU condition allows doors to be open unless a complaint was heard 1097 from the neighbors and doors may be open at the discretion of Vogel Mechanical. 1098 Mr. Crain clarified that this was not a condition of the CU requested by Vogel 1099 Mechanical, but recommended by staff. 1100 Since that condition was applied to the original IU as an additional level of safety for 1101 Chair Boguszewski neighbors, asked if there was any reason the Vogels could not 1102 operate their business with the doors closed. 1103 Ms. Vogel Quoting from the city’s noise or nuisance ordinances, stated that only for a 1104 similar statement that you could never open your windows. Ms. Vogel questioned what 1105 was intended by “operations,” if nothing was happening in the shop and at who’s 1106 discretion. Ms. Vogel stated that her interpretation had to do with the environmental 1107 conditions of the noise, as stated, and that it shall not be perceived beyond the premises. 1108 If “shall so be operated” meant that it was appropriate for them to close the doors when 1109 they thought some noise may travel off-site, Ms. Vogel expressed her 100% confidence 1110 that they could comply. Ms. Vogel referenced city noise ordinance requirements as 1111 another safety valve as well. However, Ms. Vogel sough to ensure that Condition 3 (lines 1112 245-238) of the staff report be clearly stated to avoid fueling the fires for more 1113 misunderstandings beyond those already addressed in city code and ordinance. 1114 Member Bull Due to past and current interactions with neighbors, expressed his 1115 suspicion that they would be less tolerant than normal; and therefore, he found Condition 1116 3 to set the standard and remove the city from the middle of the dispute. Member Bull 1117