2016-10-05_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

performing maintenance and repairs in a portion of the building, as well as loads of freight 413 being dropped off at the site for pick-up at a later date. 414 Member Murphy asked Mr. Buss to define what they considered to be their primary use 415 of the property. 416 Mr. Buss responded “motor freight terminal” as his interpretation of a truck transportation 417 terminal. 418 Chair Boguszewski clarified that Mr. Buss, et al was not suggesting their principle use 419 would change, but that they would be seeking to improve their parking area because they 420 felt it had been inadvertently excluded as a category when the 2010 code was adopted, 421 and needed correction in order to allow Mr. Buss’s firm to make improvements on site. 422 Ms. Diehm concurred, noting otherwise it would place their property into the legal, 423 nonconforming use category. 424 Displaying an aerial photo, Mr. Paschke identified the three buildings on the site. 425 Mr. Buss referenced the proposed language in lines 71-72 of the staff report, excepting 426 outdoor trailer storage between a principal building and adjacent public street. With their 427 firm proposing paving that yard and berms for screening, Mr. Buss asked if the berms 428 and retention pond were provided, would that area still classify as parking between the 429 building and street based on the layout of the buildings on site and their consideration of 430 the primary building. 431 Ms. Diehm suggested if the building shown on the far west of the parcel was deemed as 432 the principle building, it would allow for no parking of trailers across that entire side of the 433 property. 434 Member Murphy noted this Commission wasn’t often asked to interpret city code, and 435 suggested staff was in a better position to do so prior to coming before this body with 436 recommended code amendments. Member Murphy asked if Mr. Buss had presented 437 these additional requested changes to city staff, since they had not been brought forward 438 by staff to this body as such. Member Murphy stated he was loath to consider text 439 amendments without adequate time and that actual language in writing before him to 440 consider what was actually being proposed. Member Murphy stated he was open to 441 considering the request, but opined it should go through staff for vetting and their analysis 442 prior to consideration and recommendation by the Commission. 443 Ms. Diehm advised that they had received the staff report earlier today and talked to Mr. 444 Buss about it, suggesting a definition change was prudent, but admitted it had not been 445 discussed with Mr. Paschke earlier. However, Ms. Diehm reiterated that her client’s only 446 request was a condition as part of the proposal, that no parking be allowed between the 447 principle building and adjacent street, and whether that was an appropriate condition 448 under a Conditional Use versus minimum standards. Ms. Diehm reiterated that she and 449 her client recognized that this proposed text applied to all properties in the district, but 450 opined that their unique parcel should serve to highlight why that proposed text could 451 become an issue in the future. 452 In his interpretation of condition “a” (lines 72-73) of the staff report, Member Gitzen 453 opined the intent seemed to be in addressing the area between the front of the principle 454 building and adjacent street. 455 Mr. Paschke reviewed staff’s interpretation, and in this specific example and site, noted 456 they considered the whole building and its principle use as a motor freight terminal; and 457 the reality being that the condition is tied to that principle use and outdoor storage not 458 allowed except in the side yard area but not adjacent to the building. Whether or not that 459 was deemed agreeable in this particular instance, Mr. Paschke advised that was up to 460 the discretion of the Commission, whether to support it as a condition, as criteria, or as 461 negotiated. From staff’s perspective, Mr. Paschke advised that as he had instructed this 462 applicant, the setback would apply as he had previously stated, with trailer storage 463 allowed up to the required setback, but not in the front yard; with that trailer activity 464 allowed in the front yard, but not specifically for trailer storage. Mr. Paschke opined that 465