2016-04-06_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, March 2, 2016 Page 30 Member Cunningham noted that if by creating that barrier that could potentially increase 1476 crime, it would affect quality of life concerns. 1477 While recognizing others may disagree with him, Chair Boguszewski opined that it was 1478 too speculative in nature to consider. 1479 MemberBull advised that the tipping point for him was the drainage ditch, if it is located 1480 in a no man’s land, it created the potential for fences on either side and could create a 1481 child safety issue and blocking views of them affecting their protection.MemberBull 1482 opined that it would be a disservice to the neighborhood to encourage that; and stated his 1483 comfort level would be to install the fence on the other side of that drainage ditch at some 1484 point.At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Member Bull clarified that he would consider 1485 it closer to the property line so that drainage area was enclosed within the Vogel’s fenced 1486 area. 1487 Chair Boguszewski noted that, in reality, the residential property owners could still 1488 choose to put up a fence on their property line and create that 3” gap. 1489 Member Bull opined that was a different issue, one of safety versus maintenance, 1490 especially with a Cedar fence. 1491 Chair Boguszewski noted that could also involve a barrier type fence located further 1492 south near the northern edge of the building so the no man’s land became a no man’s 1493 field. 1494 Member Murphydeflected the conversation back to this issue and the Planning 1495 Commission’s role in analyzing a CU (starting on line 46 of the staff report).Member 1496 Murphy noted the role is to determine the facts associated with the request as to the 1497 application’s meeting of relevant legal standards and state statute. 1498 Member Murphy asked staff to define the issue of future renters and their use in 1499 conforming to the city’s zoning code.Mr. Paschke confirmed that any use, whether by the 1500 property owner or a tenant, would need to conform to city code and be a permitted use, 1501 or go through a similar CU process.At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Paschke 1502 confirmed that Item 10 listed on Ms. McCormick’s requested list of conditions was already 1503 sufficiently and inherently addressed in city code. 1504 Member Murphy advised his colleagues that he could personally support Condition 1505 options 1.B or 1.C if 1.C incorporated the standard buffer as per city code.With that 1506 caveat, Member Murphy opined that anything unusual or found lacking in current city 1507 code would need to address anything above and beyond this particular site where a 1508 chain link fence was previously in place.Member Murphy noted that this was all played 1509 out in great detail at the last City Council meeting where it was discussed, as well as 1510 Condition 1.B hashed out and well defined.Member Murphy reiterated that he would 1511 support either option as a condition. 1512 Chair Boguszewski agreed that what Member Murphy just stated was true.However, 1513 Chair Boguszewski noted that it didn’t align with what he had said earlier; and by 1514 definition the intent of the fence was to screen a particular activity around the parking 1515 area versus a true barrier between lots. 1516 Member Murphy opined that was what was wanted where residential and commercial 1517 properties abut, and suggested changing city code to address it versus having to 1518 undertake a similar debate in the future. 1519 MOTION 1520 MemberDairemoved, seconded by MemberMurphyto recommend to the City 1521 Councilapproval of a CONDITIONAL USE allowing limited production and 1522 processing as an accessory use at 2830 Fairview Avenue, based on the comments 1523 and findings contained, and subject to stated conditions for approval as detailed in 1524 the staff reportdated March 2, 2016; amended as follows: 1525