2010-10-27_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 27, 2010 Page 8 Mr. Neprash advised that his extensive review of the existing and proposed 350 performance standards had come through his work with a group of residents 351 responding to the proposed asphalt plant, and the procedural issues reflected 352 through that process by the public as well as his observation of City Council 353 discussions. 354 Mr. Neprash referenced the asphalt plant application and process related to the 355 conditional Use application for crushing operations and outdoor storage of 356 materials and heavy equipment; confusion in addressing manufacturing uses and 357 processes; and varying opinions in making those determinations. Mr. Neprash 358 asked that the Commission consider a procedure to address an underlying use in 359 a formal way for City response in the course of dealing with items under a 360 Conditional Use permit. 361 Karen Radjek, 1948 Skillman Avenue W 362 Ms. Radjek referenced inconsistencies in Conditional Use Procedures section for 363 Institutional versus Park Districts addressing communication equipment 364 (speakers), towers, sports courts and fields with lights; expressing concern that 365 they be consistent in both districts, rather than proposing that one district 366 indicates a permitted use and one district requires a conditional use. 367 Member Boerigter recognized Ms. Radjek’s point related to the PARKS AND 368 RECREATION DISTRICT, rather than under current discussion in the 369 PROCEDURES DISTRICT related to Table of Uses (1000.17 and the proposed 370 INSITTUTIONAL DISTRICT, with no distinction of whether the field is lighted or 371 not. 372 Mr. Paschke confirmed that revisions were still being developed and included 373 consideration of additional criteria for Conditional Uses in any and all districts. 374 At the request of Member Wozniak regarding additional uses for the Permitted 375 Uses Table in INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICTS, such as courts with lights and 376 loudspeakers, Mr. Lloyd noted previous comments for staff to further review and 377 treat PERFOMRANCE STANDARDS consistently among all districts as 378 appropriate. 379 Gary Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane 380 Mr. Grefenberg addressed Developer Open House Meetings and requested 381 further review and discussion of the notice area requirements, based on the 382 recent proposed asphalt plant notification area and advocated for determining the 383 notice area based on the type of development; and consistent with the criteria 384 used for the formal public hearing process. Mr. Grefenberg opined that for a 385 proposed use such as the asphalt plant, the current 500’ notice policy was not 386 sufficient; further opining that “if it had a chimney, the notice area needed to be 387 doubled.” 388 Mr. Paschke briefly reviewed the exhaustive process by the City Council several 389 years ago in increasing the notice area from State Statute requirements of 350’ 390 to 500’; and while it may not be appropriate for every situation, how a 391 determination should be made for which projects dictate further notice extension. 392 Mr. Paschke noted that the references to the notice area were not a part of the 393 zoning code being considered tonight, but in another chapter not currently under 394 consideration. Mr. Paschke advised that staff was happy to have discussion of 395 the notice area and procedures now as well as when that specific chapter was 396 addressed; and further noted that staff was ready to the notice area as directed 397 by the City Council; but clarified that staff was not currently advocating changing 398 the notification distance of 500’ during this zoning code rewrite. 399 Member Gottfried assured Mr. Grefenberg that his concerns were now part of the 400 public record and would be considered for discussion as applicable. However, 401 Member Gottfried concurred with staff that the notice distance had received 402