Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />AUGUST 11, 2016 <br />run north and south. He stated they will be installing new and extended <br />fencing when the building is expanded. Buesing asked if the breakroom <br />could be put on the east side instead. Mr. Domeier stated with the way the <br />building interior is laid out, it would not work to add a breakroom there. <br />Richard Reeves, owner of the adjacent Maaco Auto Painting business at <br />3245 Country Drive, stated the proposal for the expansions to come within <br />three feet of his property is fine with him. He stated that he likes the <br />building expanding because it helps close his property in for more <br />security. <br />Duray stated that after hearing the Lapham-Hickey representative's <br />comments about why the breakroom location is limited and hearing that <br />the adjacent owner wants the building to expand, he is agreeable to <br />granting both variances, but wants to hear other Commissioners <br />comments. Buesing stated that even if they just put a four foot walkway <br />where the breakroom is proposed that would leads to the breakroom on the <br />east side of the existing building, they would have a big enough setback. <br />Davison stated he is open to granting both variances, but understands <br />Buesing's comments. Sandell stated he is leaning towards leaving the <br />breakroom as proposed even though he understands setting precedence <br />with granting the variance. He explained that he sees this as a unique <br />scenario because of the safety concerns for employees. Schletty-Flores <br />stated she is also leaning towards granting both variances. Buesing stated <br />the door for the breakroom could be in the same place and would have no <br />effect on safety concerns. Jeff Schuler, project manager with Firm <br />Ground, stated if they did Mr. Buesing's proposal, it would add significant <br />costs, and the business is discussing future expansion on the east side. <br />Sandell recommended approval of a reduced building setback for the <br />machinery area expansion resulting in a setback of 7 feet 9 inches with all <br />of the conditions stated in the staff report on page 5. <br />Motion seconded by Schletty-Flores. <br />Motion carried 5 — 0. <br />Sandell recommended approval of a reduced building setback variance for <br />a breakroom addition resulting in a setback of 3 feet 9 inches subject to the <br />conditions in the City Planners report. He stated that employee safety <br />concerns support the need for this variance. <br />Motion seconded by Davison. <br />Motion carried 4-1 (Buesing). <br />-7- <br />