2016-10-05_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

allowing such storage in the front yard would be inconsistent with previous discussions 466 and city code provisions; and was not the type of storage desired in front of buildings. 467 At the request of Member Cunningham, Mr. Buss stated their preferred timeframe for a 468 decision was between now and next spring, but the sooner the better as they were 469 seeking to close on the property with Mr. Anderson. 470 As part of their due diligence, Ms. Diehm advised that they had met with city staff and 471 submitted an application for a Conditional Use to bring the parcel into conformity, with 472 that process underway since July of 2016; with some urgency on their part as they 473 attempt to complete this real estate transaction. 474 Member Cunningham stated she was uncomfortable with this requested language not 475 having been fully vetted by staff; and asked if the applicant was interested in the 476 Commission considering what was currently before it or if it was worth it to them to have 477 this action tabled and come back for a full discussion next month. 478 Ms. Diehm stated their concern was in defining the principle building with three buildings 479 on their site; with the other suggestions by her client meant as recommendations. Ms. 480 Diehm recognized that the Planning Commission’s vote went before the City Council; and 481 if the Commission wasn’t comfortable voting on staff’s recommendations, their client was 482 fie working with staff further for presentation to the City Council. Ms. Diehm advised that 483 her client was generally supportive of the draft from staff, but with her client’s 484 recommended language changes, it would get them closer to where they preferred to be. 485 Member Cunningham stated she didn’t have enough information at this time to make an 486 educated decision. 487 Mr. Paschke opined that he wouldn’t disagree with Mr. Buss that there was language in 488 code specific to definitions that could be further reviewed for consistency; however, for all 489 practical purposes, it could be bundled and brought back at another time. Mr. Paschke 490 questioned if the current code was so sensitive for their process that it was necessary for 491 approval before they could move forward. 492 Ms. Diehm stated their preference for code allowing their requested language in order to 493 resubmit their application. 494 Chair Boguszewski asked how the principle building is applied on a multi-building site 495 and the vetting process that involved. Chair Boguszewski stated he wasn’t so concerned 496 about that, presuming the applicant would file a Conditional Use and at that time, 497 agreement on which building was the principle use could be confirmed. 498 Member Bull asked Mr. Paschke to render an opinion on that issue, whether or not the 499 principle building was one or more, and what was considered an accessory building and 500 how that term applied. 501 Not as a land use attorney, but in his strict interpretation of city code, Mr. Paschke opined 502 that on this site, there were two principle buildings and uses, with the laboratory being the 503 accessory building. Mr. Paschke advised that he would consider the building closest to 504 the street as the principle building versus those further away, and as such would apply 505 code accordingly. At the further request of Member Bull, Mr. Paschke used the displayed 506 aerial map related to loading dock activity but not ancillary to the first building, reviewing 507 this site in a similar fashion to how buildings are used to make the appropriate 508 determination. 509 At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Buss estimated 80 semi-trailers currently on site; 510 with a majority coming in for maintenance and standard upkeep as a general operating 511 procedure when dropping of their loads (e.g. tires, etc. but not major overhaul). 512 Ms. Diehm stated her client was supportive of staff’s fifth condition (Condition D). 513 Discussion ensued regarding the definition of “motor freight terminal” in the Industrial 514 District in relation to other zoning designations; and as it related to the overall purpose 515 statement. 516