Laserfiche WebLink
Session 1849 <br />August 12, 2002 <br /> <br />Mr. Lieberman said that this issue has almost raised unanimous disapproval among the <br />residents in this area. He hasn't seen this volume of reaction ever on an issue since he <br />has been on the City Council, which has been a long, long time. He agrees with <br />concerns brought up tonight, such as community welfare and potential traffic problems. <br />He also agrees that this is not the best use of this property. He honestly believes a <br />motion would be in order to deny. <br /> <br />Responding to Mr. Munkel, Mr. Ollendorff said that Mr. Mohme still owns the property. <br />Mr. Munkel stated that what concerned him the most was the noise. He believes that <br />this would be inappropriate in this situation. The traffic coming and going to this facility <br />doesn't create a greater traffic hazard than what is already there. It only takes one <br />accident and he has seen his share of injured children. He doesn't believe a traffic <br />study would prove anything one way or other. The issue for him is noise and children's <br />safety and the impact that this facility would have on the community. He believes that <br />this would be an inappropriate use for this property at this time. <br /> <br />Responding to Mr. Sharpe, Mr. Ollendorff said that the property has been cleared of the <br />underground tanks and hundreds of cubic yards of contaminated soil were removed. <br />The property is currently all clear. What no property owner will be able to get on a site <br />that housed a gasoline station or an auto repair facility is the assurance that it will <br />continue, in the future, to pass all tests. Any potential contamination of the ground, <br />water or surrounding property could leach back into the property in the future. It is a <br />remote possibility, but still a possibility. It cannot be totally clear for all time. The EPA <br />and the DNR has cleared currently. Mr. Sharpe stated that as far as he is concerned, <br />the people have spoken and that is all he can say about that matter. He would <br />appreciate the residents in this area recommending a suitable business to place at this <br />location. <br /> <br />Ms. Colquitt agrees with her colleagues on the Council - the people have spoken and <br />she recommends that the conditional use permit be denied. <br /> <br />Mr. Ollendorff stated that he wished to go on record that he was a property owner in this <br />neighborhood. <br /> <br />Mr. Wagner stated that it is important to have developments to fill empty locations with <br />appropriate businesses. It is important to the vitality of a city to do this. Zoning is a <br />separate issue and is not on the table tonight. This is obviously a very intrusive use to <br />the neighborhood and religious congregations. This is also at a very dangerous <br />intersection which will only be made worse by this development. The third concern in <br />his mind was the environmental one. Without the DNR certification issue sorted out, <br />this will always be a problematic situation. The City may need to consider <br />indemnification in order to get a good business in there. <br /> <br />Ms. Colquitt moved denial of the conditional use permit. Mr. Wagner seconded the <br /> <br /> <br />