PL PACKET 01192021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes December 15, 2020 Page 3 1 Mr. Tom Archambault stated in regard to the canopy, he agreed with Commissioner Socha 2 that aesthetically less may be more but listening to some of the residents of The Kenzington, 3 owners of the condos, noise is the largest concern and the reason whey they decided to put the 4 entrance of the car wash closest to their building. Then the area where vehicles are dried and 5 exit the building will be the farthest distance between the blowers and their building to 6 mitigate the noise and lower it as much as possible. With staff recommendation of a canopy, 7 he thought it is a very good consideration to act in good faith as a good neighbor. 8 9 Chairperson Westrick asked if there was anyone in the public who would like to address the 10 Commission. 11 12 Mr. Grittman indicated there was no one in the chamber but there where some written 13 submissions from the following public: 14 15 • Ms. Jeanette Fleming, owner at #410, The Kenzington 16 • Mr. Lee John Kurtz, 2601 Kenzie Terrace, Apt. 109, The Kenzington 17 • Mr. Dave Hess, owner at #409, The Kenzington 18 19 Mr. Grittman read the emails into the record. 20 21 Mr. Dave Hess addressed the Commission and indicated he was against the car wash being 22 built. 23 24 Mr. Dave Colling, 2708 27th Avenue, addressed the Commission with concerns about the 25 noise, not necessarily with the car wash itself but from radios playing, people talking, etc. He 26 would also love to see a study done with similar facilities in a residential area and how they 27 have impacted those spaces. 28 29 Ms. Jeanette Fleming addressed the Commission and indicated she was against the car wash 30 being built. Her main concern is going back to the Code Mr. Grittman was quoting in the 31 beginning, Section 152.243c. There was one requirement that is not included in the ten 32 conditions that staff was giving to the Commission to consider, which is Subsection 3. One of 33 the requirements for a Conditional Use Permit; “The use will not be detrimental to the health, 34 safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or to the values of 35 property in the vicinity.” That particular Subsection was not dealt with at all in the ten 36 conditions and she asked that somehow that be taken into consideration before the CUP is 37 approved. She thought this was an incompatible use for the land. 38 39 Councilmember Walker asked why the owner did not, as a precondition, talk to the residents 40 before even approaching the City to request to install the car washing units because from what 41 he is hearing from the residents, they have a good relationship with the owner. He was 42 thinking from the context of making things simpler, to have a conversation with the residents 43 before it even becomes formal with the City itself. He wondered if this occurred or not. 44 45 3