5.2. SR 01-20-2009 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Public Comment Fred McCoy, the applicant, introduced himself and had several questions on how the Bluffs project was approved and built. He felt his project was going to have far less impact than the Bluffs project did. In response to the building material suggestions, the applicant was acceptable with the proposed recommendations. Ron Touchette spoke on behalf of the Bluffs building citing possible noise, lighting, and parking issues. He was concerned with the residential units facing the subject property and how they would be affected by possible late night noise on the deck. He felt the extra traffic generated from the proposed addition would take away from parking for other businesses. Planning Commission Discussion Most of the discussion focused around the second survey that staff received after the planning packets had been sent out. The second survey had conflicting information with the survey that was included with the application. Staff clarified that the Planning Commission should be reviewing and making their recommendation on the original survey that was part of their memo. The main difference reflected on the revised survey shows a variation from the definition of bluff, from which the bluff setback is measured. The survey included in the Planning Commission packet indicates the bluff line as defined by the DNR regulations. One commissioner commented on the possible noise and stated that tenants purchasing a unit in an urban setting should expect some level of noise; citing train and highway noise as more obtrusive. Another commissioner stated he would like to make a recommendation of approval and then let the City Council/DNR work it out. Several other commissioners stated their job is to make recommendations based on the ordinance and felt denial was the proper recommendation. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the request by a 5-1 vote. Attachments • Staff report to Planning Commission dated January 13, 2009 • Updated survey submitted on January 9, 2009 Action Motion by Second by Vote Follow Up S:\PLANNING MAIN\Casc Filcs\CUP\CU 08-24 McCoy\CU 08-24_CC.doc