2016-03-02_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 2, 2016 Page 23 also expressed his support of the wording for valid versus non-valid complaints to protect 1118 the nature of the city. 1119 Mr. Crain stated that, as he understands it, the noise level of this facility should be the 1120 same if not less than the facility located immediately to the east. Mr. Crain asked if that 1121 business had a similar condition for their use. As quoted by Ms. Vogel, Mr. Crain opined 1122 that the city already had in place great ordinances to address these issues, and since the 1123 system seems to work for every other property in town, questioned why this particular 1124 operation needed an additional condition that their doors remain closed. 1125 Member Cunningham noted part of the rationale for the original IU condition was that 1126 the business use to the east had been grandfathered in and comments of neighbors 1127 indicated they found noise from that business to be disruptive. 1128 Ms. Vogel noted that the previous business had been a stamping business, and not 1129 similar in nature to their use. 1130 Mr. Paschke sought to keep tonight’s deliberation specific to the current CU application 1131 rather than the previous IU application. While recognizing that it was difficult to separate it 1132 from past issues, Mr. Paschke clarified that the role of the Commission is to look at the 1133 application from a CU regulatory level and this particular use. Mr. Paschke asked that the 1134 Commission do its best to focus their decision-making accordingly and not reach out to or 1135 look at this CU application from the perspective of their past actions or how the use was 1136 gauged in the past. Mr. Paschke noted that the specificity defined here is more than the 1137 broader reach of an IU, with a CU more narrowly defined with the definition of that use 1138 not requiring a fence anywhere else or other conditions under that use definition. Mr. 1139 Paschke asked that the Commission fully understand that and what could potentially 1140 occur as a use on this site and as the CU application related to previous mitigation 1141 conditions under the IU. 1142 Chair Boguszewski While in general agreement, noted that if the Commission found 1143 conditions of the IU still necessary, they may as well deny the CU and le the IU stand for 1144 the full five years. 1145 Mr. Paschke clarified that he was not suggesting that, but simply clarifying that CU 1146 approval was more strict than an IU, with a distinct process in place for Cu review beyond 1147 that of an IU. 1148 Mr. Crain To make sure everyone is clear and as touched upon by Ms. Vogel, noted that 1149 the city had just gone through with its rezoning plan, with part of its purpose to buffer 1150 residential properties from future development. Mr. Crain opined that this seemed to 1151 serve as a perfect solution to have commercial (CMU-1) in areas adjacent to residential 1152 properties with little noise and less truck traffic. Mr. Crain briefly reviewed some of the 1153 permitted uses that could apply to this parcel under that zoning, and representative of a 1154 culmination of the work done by the city in addressing its future development and/or 1155 redevelopment. 1156 Mr. Crain stated that he and his clients expected to hear public comment in opposition to 1157 their CU application, and respectively asked that he and his clients be allowed, after 1158 public comment, to address any remaining questions of the Commission or public in 1159 response and to address any misconceptions that may be stated. 1160 Chair Boguszewski Regardless of what had occurred to-date, stated that his personal 1161 view of this was in agreement with Mr. Paschke; that the decision before the body tonight 1162 was to look at the CU application. Under that scenario, and for the benefit of the public 1163 wishing to speak during the public hearing, Chair Boguszewski stated that anything from 1164 that prior relationship perspective was no longer relevant to the facts of this CU 1165 application. In its most simple form, Chair Boguszewski stated that the Planning 1166 Commission and City Council had approved an IU for this business, with conditions 1167 thought to prove helpful and balance the residents and business itself. With this longer- 1168 term or approval that stays with the property in perpetuity as long as conditions are met, 1169