2015-09-17_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, September 17, 2015 Page 14 Given discussions on previous uses for town homes, etc., Chair Boguszewski questioned why 635 this was then listed as NP all the way through CMU designations. 636 Mr. Bilotta admitted that technology may be destroying this potential use long-term, but given 637 possible uses in this classification, he was unsure how to regulate them in the future. 638 Given that rationale, and without knowing ahead of time, Chair Boguszewski opined that you 639 would be out of compliance no matter what; and therefore suggested P use; with Member Bull 640 suggesting CU across the board. 641 By consensus, the Commission determined that this use should be CU across all CMU 642 designated areas. 643 Communication Equipment (TV, shortwave radio) 644 Member Bull questioned if this use could potentially interfere with residential neighborhoods. 645 Mr. Paschke and Mr. Lloyd responded that this use needs to operate within their own frequency 646 via short-wave or cell towers and therefore didn’t interfere and typically didn’t create problems for 647 adjacent properties. 648 Unlike the Shoreview towers referenced by Member Murphy, Mr. Paschke noted that they were 649 different than this use would allow, with these uses typically residential antenna of 20’ to 25’ in 650 height with any additional height clearly CU. 651 Mr. Bilotta further noted that these are accessory structures, not the principle use, with short 652 wave operations governed under federal regulations. 653 Day Care Family/Group Home 654 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Bilotta noted this as an accessory use was intended as 655 a less-intensive use compared to the daycare center uses defined in commercial areas; and 656 considered for home use, not commercial uses. 657 Drive-throughs 658 At the request of Member Murphy differentiating this from restaurant uses, Mr. Lloyd advised that 659 the City Council chose not to ban them outright in case a bank or pharmacy use may be 660 acceptable in the CMU versus a fast food restaurant use, thus their recognition of them as CU in 661 CMU-3 and 4 designated areas. 662 Based on 2010 discussions, with banks and other uses being considered without having to go 663 through the CU process, Mr. Paschke advised that it was concluded at that time that ALL drive- 664 throughs should go through the CU process, thus requiring a separate line for each consideration, 665 no matter their intended use. 666 Gazebo, Arbor, Patio, Play Equipment 667 Member Bull noted there may be a need to know size, occupancy, etc. for CMU-1 districts. 668 Mr. Paschke responded that the rationale is to take into consideration impacts to adjacent 669 residential properties as applicable; and to ensure consistency with current code requirements 670 where permitted across the board, and defined as accessory structures by nature. At the request 671 of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Paschke agreed this could include restaurants with outdoor patios or 672 arboretums or play lots as an accessory use, but small compared to a giant city or county park. 673 Consensus was to leave this as currently stated in the Table of Uses. 674 Storage Building 675 At the request of Member Cunningham, Mr. Lloyd clarified that this did not include a rent-a- 676 storage unit use, but as noted by Mr. Paschke would be an accessory category and use only, 677 such as used for storage of lawn or snow maintenance equipment versus a larger facility 678 incorporated into the main building itself. 679 Telecommunications Tower 680 Mr. Lloyd reiterated that this would be different than communications equipment and an 681 accessory use to the main structure (e.g. AT & T Tower). 682