CCP 04-22-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mary McManus, Stinson Blvd, opposes the commercial use in any public park and opposes the • tower due to the potential health risks. Michelle Veillette, 2908 Brookshire Lane, opposes the tower due to the potential health risks and does not want to expose any children playing at the park to those risks. Rich Morrison, 1405 290 Ave NW, opposes the commercial use in any public park and opposes the tower due to the potential health risks. Julie Hogan, 2660 15s' Street NW, opposes the park because of the potential health risks. Pam Luinenburg, 1545 Stinson Blvd, opposes the park because of the potential health risks. Zisla asked if the City Attorney would lay out the bounds for the decision making by the Planning Commission and the legitimate scope and constraints to be considered. Gundlach replied that there are some memos from 2000, when the towers were placed in Creek View Park that address this issue and would ask the City Attorney for guidance on this matter. Schiferl asked staff if the American Planning Association may have any updated information regarding land and zoning issues related to cell towers. Gundlach replied that she is not sure, but would look into prior to the May meeting. Motion by Baker, second by O'Brien to CONTINUE THE PUBLIC MEEITNG TO THE MAY 20TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. • 5 ayes, 0 nays. MOTION APPROVED. Public Hearings: LP2008-002, SP2008-006 Site Plan, & Special Use Permit to permit construction of a drive-thru lane at the south end of the existing building at 2051 Silver Lake Road The applicant is requesting Site Plan and Special Use Permit approval to allow construction of a drive-thru at the south end of the existing building located at 2051 Silver Lake Road. The improvements include the closing of the existing full access at Rice Creek Road and the addition of an "out only" lane for the drive-thru 60' further east than the existing Rice Creek Road access. The applicant has also proposed a 6' cedar fence at the southeast comer of the site, as well as additionally landscaping in an effort to screen the drive -thin from the residential neighborhood to the east. Lastly, the applicant has proposed improvements to the west and south fagades that would accommodate up to three tenants. The Commission may recall that the Site Plan was initially considered at the February 19`h meeting; however that portion of the application was tabled. This was due to the code amendment request allowing for a Special Use Permit to allow a 15' side street yard -parking setback. This code amendment was necessary in order to correct an existing condition on this property. The City Council approved the code amendment request on February 26`h. • Zisla asked why staff is recommending doing the drive thru as a special use permit and not as part of a site plan review. Gundlach replied that a site plan is an application where all items are