2015-10-07_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes – Wednesday, September 2, 2015 Page 27 the essence from a business perspective; and opined that this discussion had included or 1327 sought little input from the business community to-date.Ms. Vogel referenced a recent 1328 publication by the North Suburban Chamber of Commerce in which it was found that 1329 there was one business for every three homes, but sheopined she was not hearing input 1330 in that proportion, suggesting a narrow viewpoint.Ms. Vogel noted that some of these 1331 issues affected their business personally, and reminded the Commission that while there 1332 may be a difference in taxpayers, the businessescontributed to a community in a variety 1333 of ways beyond its tax base. 1334 Ms. Vogel stated that the zoning issue was huge, and referenced the first meeting their 1335 firm had held before purchasing their business located at immediately north and east of 1336 the intersection of Fairview Avenue and Terrace Drive, at which only four residents were 1337 present, with their most important request and concern being that their firm mow the 1338 lawn.Since then, Ms. Vogel noted that they had been criticized for not doing their due 1339 diligence, and having invested considerable money in their firm to address environmental 1340 issues and concerns in response to the adjacent residential neighborhood, remained 1341 interested in moving forward.Ms. Vogel noted the differences in their firm’s much less 1342 intense use than the previous user (Aramark), with only six employees working at this 1343 site, yet still being unable to move in completely due to phasing and financing issues due 1344 to various delays in the process. 1345 Ms. Vogel asked that the Commission consider business issues related to financing 1346 partner requirements, equity in their building and equipment, and the position it placed a 1347 business in if they intended to make any P use subject to CU, requiring business to delay 1348 activities for another 90-120 days in that process.Ms. Vogel noted that this could result in 1349 losinga business to another community; and asked that they give fair consideration to 1350 the timeliness of their decision-making. 1351 Chair Boguszewski and Member Murphy sought clarification, provided by Mr. Lloyd, that 1352 the Vogel property had originally been zoned HDR, and proposed for CMU-1, and thus 1353 requiring an IU at this time; with any proposed zoning change allowing approval 1354 remaining as is. 1355 Mr. Lloyd further clarified that the IU approval was predicated on an understanding that 1356 the businesses use was limited production/processing, and was a CU in the proposed 1357 CMU-1 zoning district, if approved.At that time, Mr. Lloyd advised that Vogel Mechanical 1358 could apply for a CU as a P use versus their current limited term IU that they were 1359 currently operating under for their property. 1360 Lacy Kapaun, 1840 County Road C-2 West 1361 Ms. Kapaunstated that she was generally in agreement with the various zoning sections, 1362 with the exception of the height restriction, opining that it was too high in areas along 1363 Fairview Avenue unless in a CMU-1 designated area where 35’ would be acceptable. 1364 Ms. Kapaunstated that her other issue was in not knowing the results of the Twin Lakes 1365 Parkway extension and what may develop as a result or how much traffic it may 1366 generate.Other than those many unknowns at this time, Ms. Kapam stated that the other 1367 provisions appeared to be reasonable, beyond knowing how much traffic would be 1368 produced with various uses.Therefore, Ms. Kapam asked for more restrictions in CMU-3 1369 along Fairview Avenue, since that was a major concern for her; and further expressed 1370 her agreement with the comments and issues brought forward tonight by Ms. McCormick. 1371 Kathleen Erickson, 1790 Centennial Drive 1372 Ms. Erickson spoke to the process itself, opining that the reason more residents didn’t 1373 participate was because the language involved in most discussions within City Hall was 1374 too intimidating for the average citizen.As an example, Ms. Erickson referenced the first 1375 mailed noticethe neighborhood had received for the public hearing to consider the IU for 1376 the former Aramark building, admitting she had no idea what that meant beyond 1377 understanding it was a short-term use.Without being an attorney or developer, Ms. 1378 Erickson noted that residents were unaware of what was actually happening, and in her 1379