2015-09-17_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, September 17, 2015 Page 6 Mr. Bilotta noted as an example the breweries that may be brewing or changing vats inside a 250 building, which is unknown to the general public or staff; but if they were fielding customers after 251 hours, then that became problematic. 252 Chair Boguszewski noted that businesses uses disruptive for adjacent residences seemed 253 to be covered in the retail section or restaurant customer text on page 16, and suggested 254 eliminating Item 6.a and make Item 6.b state CUM-1 and CMU-2 districts; or questioned if 255 that was too far out, since the way the text is currently proposed made CMU-2 restrictive. 256 Member Cunningham opined that CMU-2 as currently written only addressed retail or customer 257 traffic now. 258 Chair Boguszewski questioned if there was any activity (e.g. movie theater or bakery or other 259 use) with service customers that would not be covered with the exception of internal workers or 260 set up. Chair Boguszewski opined that it did with his recommended text revisions. 261 Member Bull spoke in support of Chair Boguszewski’s suggested text change. 262 Member Murphy referenced funeral home uses on the next page in the Table of Uses. 263 Chair Boguszewski clarified that embalming could be done overnight with that use, but no viewing 264 could occur prior to 6:00 a.m. 265 Member Murphy noted suggested deliveries had to occur 24/7 as “work” arrived at a facility. 266 Chair Boguszewski suggested further revisions to text with Item 6.b remaining as is, but 267 Item 6.a mimicking current proposed text except in CMU-1 for service and/or restaurant 268 traffic. 269 Member Murphy further questioned transportation uses (e.g. Metro Transit’s Park & Ride Facility) 270 and if parking allowed as now stated, would that be covered in prohibiting limited business hours. 271 Mr. Lloyd responded that in is a use in NB, staff would have changes to NP in CMU-1. 272 However, Member Murphy questioned what the example was in defining “essential services.” 273 Mr. Bilotta clarified that that was defined as utility boxes, water towers, telephone lines, gas pipe 274 lines, substations, etc. that just were static. 275 Mr. Paschke noted that due to their essential nature for customers 24/7, they were subject to 276 maintenance at any time. 277 Chair Boguszewski noted that those essential services were typically governed by easements or 278 other means, and questioned why they would be included in the table of uses. 279 Mr. Bilotta clarified that easements controlled their location, but theoretically they would not be 280 allowed in CMU-2. 281 Member Murphy noted an exception for storage buildings, with Mr. Lloyd advising that this fell into 282 the category of an accessory use (e.g. garden or utility shed for commercial uses) to store lawn or 283 snow care maintenance equipment. 284 By consensus, the Commission determined that the revised language to Item 6.a and Item 6.b 285 covered concerns expressed; and was recommended for revisions as follows: 286 Item 6 Limited Business Hours: 287 a. “In the CMU-1 District, on-site retail, service, and/or restaurant customer traffic \[and delivery 288 traffic\] is not permitted after 2:00 a.m. and before 6:00 a.m.; such customer traffic in the 289 CMU-2, CMU-3 and CMU-4 Districts is allowed as a CU.” 290 b. “In the CMU-2 District, on-site retail, service, and/or restaurant customer traffic is not 291 permitted after 2:00 a.m. and before 6:00 a.m.; such customer traffic in the CMU-3 and CMU- 292 4 District is allowed as a CU.” 293 Member Murphy questioned if a final decision had been made on “urgent care” uses, whether to 294 create another category for CMU-1 as NP, with P use in CMU-2, 3 and 4. 295