2013_10_02_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 2, 2013 Page 8 Commission, and applicants to determine what would work best and which type of fence or 349 screening would best fit a specific application. 350 Based on that continued staff involvement in determining height, Member Daire questioned if that 351 should be made a part of the motion. 352 Mr. Paschke opined that it wasn’t necessary, as most staff review and implementations were 353 enforced by staff and it would remain up to staff to advise applicants on how best to achieve code 354 compliance based on their particular situation, without explicitly stating it. 355 Member Stellmach spoke in general support of the request, including the upcoming section on 356 written support. However, Member Stellmach expressed ongoing concerns with the recourse for 357 future owners; even though he was somewhat comforted by the fact that future owners could 358 learn about this situation in their review of real estate records. Overall, Member Stellmach 359 advised that he would support the request. 360 Member Cunningham offered her support as well; and expressed her appreciation of the 361 clarification that staff would continue to work with applicants; and opined that she did not need 362 that language as part of the motion to lend her support of it. 363 Based on staff’s report and tonight’s discussion and explanations, Member Keynan spoke in 364 support of the motion. 365 Member Murphy, admitting to some reservation about eh 100’ being too narrow and somewhat 366 arbitrary, offered a suggested language change of 200’ as an option if a Variance process was 367 not the only option open to an applicant. 368 Mr. Paschke responded that determining whether or not to expand the distance area may be 369 considered, any number may be perceived as arbitrary with existing performance standards and 370 nuisance codes. Mr. Paschke further stated that the Variance process option came into play only 371 if an applicant couldn’t get appropriate sign-off from those within the distance requirement; 372 opining that he was unaware of how much or who else may be impacted from that standpoint. Mr. 373 Paschke clarified that he was not aware of whether or not the initial 100’ distance was really tied 374 to noise or barking; noting that there were many noises in a neighborhood, and questioned 375 whether or not a distance requirement had anything to do with a particular use or not beyond 376 providing some separation from a residential property. Based on that intent, Mr. Paschke opined 377 that the 100’ seemed appropriate, and questioned if 150’ or 200’ would be any more appropriate; 378 and if the number was changed to 200’, then the applicant could simply seek a Variance to that 379 section of code as an alternative. 380 Member Murphy clarified that he wasn’t so much concerned with this application as it was within 381 a CB District and dovetailed into that future use well. However, Member Murphy advised that he 382 was concerned with its impact with future applications. 383 At the request of Vice Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Lloyd clarified that code language takes specific 384 note of property lines versus building locations on a property. 385 MOTION 386 Member Cunningham moved, seconded by Member Stellmach to recommend to the City 387 Council APPROVAL of a proposed ZONING TEXT CHANGE; based on the comments and 388 findings of Sections 4, 6 and 7, and the recommendation and conditions of Section 8 of the 389 staff report dated October 2, 2013; specifically amending Section 1009.02 Conditional 390 Uses; D. Specific Standards and Criteria: 1.a to read: 391 “Outdoor dog runs or exercise areas shall be located at least 100’ from a residentially 392 zoned property or property in residential use \[or shall have the written support of all 393 owners of such properties within 100\].” 394 Ayes: 5 395 Nays: 1 (Boguszewski) 396 Motion carried. 397