10/04/2001 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

w Y There is no limit to how inany vehicles can be placed on the lot it is the dealer's hardship if he over stacks the cars he has to get the cars out for his customers. Mr. Maloney questioned if the applicant intended to place mounds, trees and lights on the site. There was a question as to which lots were being addressed the applicants attorney suggested that the clerk had made a typographical error. Mr. Conway reviewed the application that was filled out by the applicant's attorney as well as a letter from the attorney both indicated parcels 232-10-025, 232-10-024 and 232=10-023 as part of their request. Mr. Halleen indicated that only parcel 232-10-024 and 232-10-025 is part of the request. Mr. Gareau clarified the difference between rezoning and a use variance for the audience members. Rezoning allows the land to be used for anything that falls within that zoning. A use variance only allows the owner of the land to use the land for a specific use, which in this case if for storing cars, the land is still zoned residential. Mr. Hebebrand questioned what would stop Halleen from getting use variances all the way down the street and that it is no different then rezoning the lots. Mr. Gareau again tried to clarify what a use variance was for the audience. Ms. Schimelpfenig questioned if they could put light poles on the lot if the use variance is granted. Mr. Gareau suggested that that would be obvious, however this board could place conditions on the variance that is granted i.e. mounds with irrigation, trees/landscaping things of that nature. Mrs. Schimelpfenig indicated that she is concerned about liahts being placed on the lot as Halleen's lights shine in her bedroom now. Mr. Gareau indicated that the board could also restrict what type of lighting is used. Mrs. Smith questioned if the use variance would allow them to pave both of the lots. Mr. Gareau indicated that that was correct. Mr. Corell indicated that currently there is insufficient drainage on Dewey Road now and allowing the two lots in question to be paved over will only exacerbate the problems. Allowing these lots to be paved over will open the door to cominercial trucks using Dewey Road. Mr. Gareau indicated that with the mounds that they are planning they wouldn't be able to enter the area. Mr. Halleen indicated that they really didn't plan on having semi trucks enter the two lots. Mrs. Smith indicated that Halleen has made many promises in the past and has never upheld them. So how are they going to be held to keep their word about the mounds now? Mr. Gareau indicated that the owners would not get an occupancy permit if they did not uphold their agreement. Mr. Conway commented that anythina that is placed as a condition of the development by Planning Coriunission or the Board of Zoning Appeals has been enacted and will continue to be enforced. However -he can only enforce what is legal and in accordance to the law if it is not legal he can not act upon that. Ms. Smith Downy questioned if there wou}d be a fence and trees. She further questioned what size trees would be planted. Mr. Glavinos indicated that there would be 6-foot trees put on the mounds. 1V1s. Smith Downy questioned how far apart the trees would be placed. Mr. Gareau commented that they are talking about the parking issues regarding lighting, landscaping and drainage, that would need to go before Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board. Ms. Smith Downy suggested that the owners of Halleen had removed existinj trees and now the amount of invasive lights are worse then .they were in the past. She sug-ested that even 12 feet trees would not block light if the poles were 20-feet or higher.. Mr. Gareau remarked that KIA submitted a proposal a year ago, which showed a new building and smaller lights, he questioned if Mr. Halleen intended to resubmit that proposal. Mr. Halleen indicated that he - had plans to improve the existing buildings. Mr. Konold questioned if Mr. Halleen was aware of the lighting problem the neighbors were speakina of and questioned what he would do to correct the problems. Mr. Halleen indicated the last proposal they submitted included smaller pole lights. Mr. Halleen commented that CEI put the pole lights that are in place, not him. He suggested that if the neighbors would agree to go along with him he would remove the pole lijhts and put the smaller cutoff lights in place. Mr. Corell suggested that the current plan is the same as proposed to Planning Corrunission last year. Mr. Gareau indicated that these sites would only be used for parking cars. Mr. Corell suggested that there is notlung unique about the lots by way of typography or location. The only reason the lots are not developable as residential lots is Mr. Halleen has gone on record saying as long as he owns the lots he will never sale the lots for horries. Mr. Halleen stated that as long has he 9