2015-11-04_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Special Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, September 17, 2015 Page 22 Member Bull stated his confidence in the balance the Commission and staff had achieved in 1045 considering businesses and residents in the nature of surrounding areas; and expressed his 1046 further confidence in the gradients in each CMU subarea as now refined. 1047 Specific to height, Member Bull stated he thought the restrictions of 35’ and 65’ were adequate, 1048 noting that not all potential uses and projects would come in at those maximum heights. 1049 Regarding the 100,000 square foot delineation, Member Bull opined that he didn’t have sufficient 1050 expertise beyond staff’s guidance to-date; but remained comfortable with that provision. 1051 Member Cunningham 1052 In terms of the Table of Uses itself, Member Cunninghamexpressed confidence in tonight’s 1053 discussion.Member Cunningham noted that she took or attempted to take into account public 1054 input as part of discussions and her decision-making.While understanding the comments made 1055 by the publicand their points of reference, Member Cunningham expressed her comfort level with 1056 the Table of Uses. 1057 Member Cunningham stated that her two remaining objections involved hours of operation in the 1058 CMU-1 designated areas, and also admitted she still struggled with the 35’ height in smaller 1059 areas, and then jumping to 65’.Member Cunningham agreed that the 2:00 a.m. closing time 1060 could create more problems adjacent to residential neighborhood; and asked the Commission to 1061 reconsider that time.Member Cunningham stated that her height preference would be a 1062 maximum of 35’ across the board, but recognized there probably wasn’t a majority of consensus 1063 on the Commission to do so. 1064 Chair Boguszewski stated that was his rational in mentioning the 400’ distance, which he found 1065 more than sufficient. 1066 Chair Boguszewski offered to talk about hours of operation further if Member Cunningham had a 1067 recommendation in how best to change it. 1068 Member Murphy 1069 Member Murphy agreed with the summaries of his colleagues.While discussing the matrix of 1070 uses, Member Murphy advised that he tried to keep in mind written and oral comments received 1071 to-date and taking into consideration his perspective if he lived on the other side of the fence from 1072 a CMU-1 or CMU-3 designated area. 1073 Member Murphy further stated his comfort with the 35’ height restriction, opining that was easier 1074 to measure consistently rather than using a story measurement. 1075 Member Murphy stated that he shared Chair Boguszewski’s comments regarding the intensity of 1076 vertical mixed uses,and as an example referenced Long Lake and single-family uses or 1077 apartments and condominiums, and heights, opining that he was comfortable with the height 1078 restrictions as proposed. 1079 Regarding hours of operation, Member Murphy offered his willingness to seeif another solution 1080 was evident, even though he wasn’t displeased with the 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. restrictions, he 1081 could be persuaded to pare it down further if sufficient rationale was provided as a basis to do so. 1082 In CMU-1 designated areas, Member Murphy stated his support of the permitted uses being 1083 reduced to address any potential noise issues during that timeframe, while recognizing there may 1084 be other incidental traffic from Fairview Avenue, Terrace Drive or simply those traversing the 1085 community. 1086 Further Discussion on Hours of Operation 1087 Chair Boguszewski offered Member Cunningham an opportunity to offer suggested changes in 1088 time for CMU-1 as currently reflected in Item 6.a (page 16) for recommended revised text as the 1089 narrative prior to the Table of Uses. 1090 As her rationale in suggesting a change, Member Cunningham opined that businesses in the 1091 CMU-1 designated area abutting residential properties may be intrusive, and if it was intended to 1092 serve as a buffer zone, having a business operate until 2:00 a.m. was excessive.As an example, 1093 with residential neighborhoods typically winding down at 10:00 a.m., if a restaurant use was 1094