Laserfiche WebLink
Approved <br /> O'Keefe inquired if the eighteen foot drive is standard for a commercial site. Gundlach <br /> replied that the proposed eighteen feet width is in line with residential standards, but non- <br /> residential requires a minimum twenty-four feet for two-way traffic. O'Keefe expressed <br /> concern that the size of the site causes some safety concerns for incoming customers and <br /> added that he is uncomfortable with the proposed site plan. Acknowledging that he does <br /> not know the terrain of the site, he suggested that the site plan could be modified to fit the <br /> building and allow for a more traditional parking lot. Fernelius replied that he agrees <br /> with O'Keefe and had this been a new application this would have been looked at <br /> differently. However, a previous site plan that was similar to the current site plan had <br /> been approved with similar constraints. It would be difficult, from a regulatory stand <br /> point, to suggest something different. This is also a reason why staff is concerned about <br /> adding a use to this site. Schiferl stated that with the changes to the size of the building, <br /> that this proposal could be considered as a different proposal. He is also concerned about <br /> the site, and suggested that the commission deny the sales, and possibly also the auto <br /> repair portion, or that the applicant redesign the site plan and resubmit to the commission. <br /> Schiferl inquired from staff what the options were if the applicants decided to redesign <br /> the site plan. Gundlach replied that the Commission had several options: 1) deny the <br /> whole application, 2) deny the auto sales and approve the auto repair, 3) table the <br /> application if the applicants want to try and rework the site plan, however there is a sixty <br /> day deadline that can be extended only once, and the applicants would need clear <br /> directions on what the Commissions expectation be on a revised plan. <br /> O'Brien inquired from the applicants how close they are to construction. The applicant <br /> replied that they do have a contractor selected and will begin construction after they <br /> receive approval. They also asked for clear directions on what the Commission would <br /> like to see for the site plan, since it costs money each time they revise the plans. <br /> Schiferl stated that even if the applicants revise their plans there is still staffs concern <br /> regarding the automotive sales which would run with the land. Gundlach replied that <br /> staff recommendation would continue to be denial for the auto sales, due to the small size <br /> of the site. Gundlach added that for staff to support the automotive sales the building <br /> would have to be greatly reduced to allow for functional drive aisles, and allow for <br /> traditional parking. O'Brien inquired from the applicants if they could repair at this site <br /> and sell at a different location. Fernelius stated that the dilemma is that the City has to <br /> sign off on this site for the car sales. <br /> O'Keefe asked staff if the building was reduced by one repair stall if that would help with <br /> the parking issue. Gundlach replied that would reduce the required parking by two and <br /> would eliminate the parking stall variance that is on the application. <br /> Baker suggested that the Commission table this application for a month to give the <br /> applicant the chance to reconfigure the site plan. O'Keefe asked the applicants if they <br /> would prefer a denial on the automotive sales or if they would like to redesign their <br /> Page 8 of 13 <br />