2016-07-13_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 13, 2016 Page 9 versus hauling it all off, she found the two year timeframe too long; but could agree with 396 18 months at the maximum. 397 While recognizing that two years may seem like a long time, Member Kimble opined it 398 really wasn’t that long for the applicant when considering selling the site, development of 399 site plans, and approval of those plans prior to construction start. 400 Mr. Paschke agreed, and also noted that the winter seasons should be considered during 401 that two year timeframe as well, with limited activity or no activity occurring at all. 402 Therefore, Mr. Paschke advised that the two year development window was considered 403 fair by staff; and noted other IU terms were typically for 3 to 4 years. Mr. Paschke noted 404 this operation was well away from residential properties, and therefore staff was 405 comfortable with the two years but no longer without extenuating circumstances, and 406 requiring an extension. Realistically, Mr. Paschke advised that an 18 month timeframe 407 was not very long based on staff’s experience with other development and 408 redevelopment projects, involving grading, utility and building permits, opining that even 409 two years would be pushing that allotted time. 410 Chair Boguszewski agreed that the 18 month period could involve two winters during that 411 cycle as well. 412 At the request of Member Cunningham, Mr. Paschke clarified that the two year clock 413 started at the time of City Council approval of the IU permit. 414 While recognizing concerns with the two year timeframe, Member Gitzen stated he didn’t 415 see any potential for harm by putting the IU out there for two years, and saw no need to 416 shorten that. Member Gitzen agreed with staff that with seasons, sale of aggregate and 417 other considerations in redeveloping this site, allow two years to dispose of the materials 418 seemed fair. 419 Member Murphy opined he found other sites in the vicinity of this location to be just as 420 offensive to view or more so than a stockpile of crushed materials. 421 Member Cunningham recognized both sides of the issue, and while appreciating the 422 more favorable environmental impacts of not hauling material off site, she could live with 423 keeping it on site for two years. 424 Member Bull stated his preference to allow the two year window if it would serve an 425 advantage of using the material locally versus impacts to the city’s infrastructure and 426 environment by hauling it off site. 427 Member Cunningham stated her two concerns with the IU were the safety concern with a 428 25’tall pile of gravel and concerns with children accessing the site. At a minimum, 429 Member Cunningham asked the property owner to reconnect that open fence area to 430 ease her concerns, and also suggesting that may improve their insurance rating 431 accordingly. Also, Member Cunningham reiterated her concerns about the length of time, 432 noting this was a relatively quiet neighborhood and there was no question the operations 433 would impact those walking around the lake. Member Cunningham asked if there was 434 interest among her colleagues in reducing the hours of operation to conclude by 8:00 435 p.m. other than for machinery maintenance. 436 On the flip side, Member Murphy noted during the similar work done at the Walnut Street, 437 Terminal Road project, he wasn’t even aware of the work going on. From a noise 438 standpoint, Member Murphy stated he would rather have a 15 hour work day and shorter 439 timeframe versus shorter workdays and of longer duration. 440 Mr. Bollhaber stated he had no problem with the 8:00 p.m. work day stop, as long as 441 other activities (e.g. machinery maintenance and preparation) beyond that time could 442 occur. 443 AMENDMENT TO ORIGINAL MOTION 444 Member Cunningham moved, seconded by Member Kimble to add another 445 condition as follows: 446