2015-11-04_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Special Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes – Wednesday, September 17, 2015 Page 17 area, but beneficial for the City to purchase to create a greater buffer in that area.Mr. Paschke 785 noted this would be addressed with potential future dedications if and when projects came 786 forward. 787 Recess 788 Chair Boguszewski recessed the meeting at approximately 9:18 p.m. and reconvened at 789 approximately 9:24 p.m. and invited public comments or questions at this time. 790 Public Comment 791 Lacy Kapaum, 1840 County Road C-2 West 792 Ms. Kapaum sought clarification on the 2:00 a.m. timeframe and how that had been established; 793 opining that Midnight is late enough if a use is adjacent to residential areas.Ms. Kapaumstated 794 that she didn’t feel comfortable with the proposed 2:00 a.m. time and potential negative impacts 795 to residential properties from increased traffic and noise. 796 Mr. Lloyd advised that the time was mostly tied into the hours restaurants or breweries would be 797 allowed to serve alcohol, as controlled by state statutes. 798 Also, Ms. Kapaum asked about the Table of Uses line item for “lodging/motel” being changed to P 799 (permitted) in CMU-3 designated districts, and the rationale for that change.Ms. Kapaumnoted 800 that it such a use was permitted on Fairview Avenue, it would generate a lot of traffic in and out at 801 times, when there was already a considerable amount of lodging traffic occurring.Ms. Kapaum 802 stated her opposition to that and asked if the Commission would consider making that a CU or 803 another option. 804 Chair Boguszewski responded that if and when a hotel would be proposed, traffic studies would 805 be part of the approval process; and also noted that just because a use was permitted, didn’t 806 mean a 1,000 room hotel would occur, given the other code considerations to be considered. 807 Mr. Lloyd concurred that a traffic analysis may be part of the approval process, but not 808 necessarily so, he advised that other setback and regulating plan requirements would constrain 809 any potential development in practical ways depending on what the use was and where it was 810 proposed tobe located. 811 Ms. Kapaum asked if CU could be considered by the Commission for further protections; with 812 Chair Boguszewski responding that the Commission would consider it as part of their discussion 813 following public comment. 814 Regarding the concern regardinghours, Member Bull asked if Ms. Kapaumwas addressing those 815 pertaining to CMU-1 designated areas or across the board in all subareas. 816 Ms. Kapaumresponded that CMU-1 was her specific concern due to the evening traffic along 817 Fairview Avenue already evidenced; and her concern that adding more traffic at that hour would 818 be a hardship for residents along Fairview Avenue. 819 Lisa McCormick, 820 Ms. McCormick expressed appreciation for the work being put into this issue. 821 For clarification purposes, Ms. McCormick asked if there was any correlation between the number 822 of stories and feet, making a general assumption of 10’ equaling one story.As Mr. Bilotta had 823 referenced the petitions submitted by residential neighbors to this area, Ms. McCormick notedthe 824 height restriction sought at 35’ for MDR designated areas specifically to limit the type of units 825 considered.However, and as a point of reference, Ms. McCormick expressed concern in how that 826 would translate into practical reality across the CMU subareas.Using the Vogel Mechanical 827 parcel as an example, and location of their back parking lot only 50’ from residential neighbor 828 properties, Ms. McCormick opined that was very close proximity, and based on her recollection of 829 City Council discussions, she thought the intent was to change zoning to CMU and keep it 830 consistent with existing uses moving forward.Ms. McCormick went through her list of multi-tenant 831 uses and manufacturing/industrial uses in the immediate area, noting the great variety of uses; 832 but since all of those buildings were one-story buildings, for consistency, asked that height 833 restrictions be limited to one-story as long as not residential and the CMU-1 remain consistent 834