2015-10-07_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes – Wednesday, September 2, 2015 Page 18 Member Murphy clarified that this requirement for parking was a state requirement for a 865 5’ separation for security purposes when trailers were parked parallel to each other. 866 Member Bull stated he would support the IU request with a few wording changes. 867 Member Stellmach stated that he was leaning toward supporting the 3-year IU request, 868 opining that safety issues would improve with the staff-recommended conditions to the 869 IU, and in consideration of the property owners’ apparent interest in the goal of 870 transitioning the property sooner than later, and which he would then support them in 871 those efforts. 872 Member Cunningham admitted she struggled in approving a 3 year IU when so much 873 remained up in the air with this area, and the Twin Lakes parkway, opining that it may 874 prove discouraging for residents to see this unsightly storage in an area focused on 875 redevelopment.While appreciating the 70’ front yard setback condition, Member 876 Cunningham stated that she could not support a 3 year IU, but would be more amenable 877 to a 1 or 2 year IU. 878 Chair Boguszewski noted that the Commission could choose to amend the IU term at 879 their discretion. 880 Based on the plans outlined by Mr. Commers, Member Cunningham suggested that a 2 881 year IU term seemed reasonable based on current market conditions, while still allowing 882 them to return to the Planning Commission for an extension of the IU if market conditions 883 dictated it. 884 Chair Boguszewski stated that he was not convinced that a fence or visual barrier 885 screening of the site wouldn’t also improve the application from his perspective. 886 Member Cunningham noted that it may just be the uniqueness of this site sincethe next 887 IU request proposed fencing. 888 Mr. Paschke responded that there was a difference in the IU requests based on their 889 specific use, with the other request consisting of a contractor yard that functioned much 890 differently than this and requiring screening at a lower level than could be achieved with 891 the trailer storage use.Mr. Paschke opined that a massive wall that would need to be 892 created to screen this IU use would be more unsightly than the trailers, and would not 893 serve to address the functioning ofthe site required by the Fire Marshal to address his 894 concerns.Mr. Paschke advised that this was part of the rationale in staff recommending 895 the 3-year term and no fence requirements on this parcel based on uses on the east side 896 of Fairview Avenue also having a lot of outdoor storage on those sites and similar to how 897 this site functioned in the past.Given the intent of the owner to raze the existing building 898 and redevelop the sit in the short-term, Mr. Paschke opined a term of 2-3 years was 899 better from his perspective, and without knowing how those properties on the east side of 900 Fairview Avenue would eventually develop. 901 Community Development Director Paul Bilotta addressed the fencing specific to this IU 902 application, noting that most IU terms were for a full 5 years, with potential extension if 903 remaining compliant.However, Mr. Bilotta noted that neither the applicant nor the City 904 was interested in extending this particular use for 10-15 years.Mr. Bilotta advised that 905 one reason a fence was included in this IU approval and conditions was to not place an 906 additional performance requirement on the site or asking the property owner to invest 907 significantly on the site’s value under this IU use.While it was at the discretion of the 908 Planning Commission and subsequently the City Council, Mr. Bilotta advised that staff’s 909 rationale was that it would be better to simply get the trailers further back on the lot and 910 not require a fence that may imply that the property owner had long-term rights for these 911 activities, andthereby encouraging redevelopment of the site for a higher and better use. 912 In looking at Fairview Avenue based on its past and where it appear to be moving and 913 general welfare concerns for the neighborhood in allowing this IU, Member Murphystated 914 that hedidn’t feel he could support the request.In looking back to 2006 or even 2011, 915 Member Murphy noted there was much more empty space and less trailer storage on this 916