Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br /> -3- <br /> . e Administrative Assistant' s November 16 .recommendations regarding <br /> the proposal, for the benefit of the residents present for the hearing. <br /> Mr. Jones arrived at 8 : 37 p.m. <br /> Mr. Volkman drew the Commission' s attention to the Planning Commission <br /> minutes for their meeting March 15, 1977 , which addressed the zoning <br /> of this property and adjacent property at the time the Fudali property <br /> was rezoned for the Foss Townhouse complex. Copies of the pertinent <br /> portions of those minutes had been included in the Agenda. Mr. Teske <br /> said his property next to Blanske ' s is already experiencing a drainage <br /> problem and he was concerned that further changes in the Blanske <br /> property elevations will increase his problems. He was told the City <br /> Public works Director is aware of these problems and is working with <br /> the Fudalis on a drainage system for the townhouses which it is hoped <br /> will solve Mr. Teske' s problems as well. Mr. Teske was also concerned <br /> about the height of the fence proposed to be built by Mr. Blanske. <br /> Dr. Leo Zaworski, 3763 Foss Road, expressed his concern with the <br /> machines and vehicles being stored on the Blanske property close to <br /> the Mirror Lake shoreline, wondering whether such development is <br /> not regulated by the Department of Natural Resources. <br /> Dale Lindman, 3745 Foss Road, another townhouse resident, said he <br /> was concerned with the setback of the proposed facility in relation <br /> to the existing adjacent buildings. Dr. Bruce O'Brien, 3737 Foss <br /> Road, president of the Foss Townhouse Owners Association, said he <br /> echoed the concerns of Mr. Lindman and other townhouse residents and <br /> • felt more information was needed before those residents could give <br /> an informed opinion regarding the proposed development. Mr. Volkman <br /> told the Commission Mr. Blanske had indicated to him his willingness <br /> to "put whatever the City wants on that property" , but reminded them <br /> the property owner has the option of developing the property within <br /> the City requirements as best he can whether he chooses a permitted <br /> use, such as a body shop, or whatever. Dr. O 'Brien felt the parking <br /> requirements for such a development would probably prevent that usage <br /> of the property and Mr. Berg confirmed the parking requirements for <br /> the mini storage facility would be for at least 47 spaces, which he <br /> felt would not be realistic since there would probably never be more <br /> than two or three vehicles parked on the site at a time. Mr. Jones <br /> later questioned this assumption saying this type of facility is <br /> often used by construction companies who store materials and vehicles <br /> for daily use which would generage more traffic than other expected <br /> uses. Mr. Fornell gave the history of that property and its zoning <br /> as well as the steps which had led to friction between competing <br /> land uses in that neighborhood. <br /> The Public Hearing was closed at 9 :19 p.m. when no further input was <br /> offered by the attending residents. <br /> Mr. Berg reiterated that a decision regarding the request could <br /> probably not be made until a determination is agreed to as what <br /> classification the use falls in since mini storage facilities are <br /> not specifically addressed in the City Zoning Ordinance and the size <br /> of variances for setbacks and parking cannot be determined until the <br /> existing roadbed for Sunset Lane is identified. There was agreement <br />