Laserfiche WebLink
Regular Planning CommissionMeeting <br />Minutes –Wednesday, March 2, 2016 <br />Page 31 <br />Condition 1.B is the option recommended, in addition to conditions 2 and 3 as <br />1526 <br />stated. <br />1527 <br />Member Stellmach stated his continued curiosity about the easement issue and if <br />1528 <br />Condition 1.B would require Vogel to install thefence on the easement. <br />1529 <br />Mr. Paschke advised that, as Condition 1.B appeared in the staff report, it was as applied <br />1530 <br />by the City Council at the Vogel appeal hearing, and ratifying the administrative ruling of <br />1531 <br />the Community Development Director, as well as the IU and applicant’s proposal.As far <br />1532 <br />as the location of the fence in accordance with that language, Mr. Paschke advised that <br />1533 <br />staff would need to await and review what was submitted by the Vogels for the fence <br />1534 <br />permit under the CU or not installation it; and then at that time make a determination as <br />1535 <br />to whether or not they had met this condition of approval. <br />1536 <br />At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Paschke advised that, from his understanding, <br />1537 <br />either staff or the City Manager would make that determination as to whether or not the <br />1538 <br />proposal achieved the intent of if another appeal was required.Mr. Paschke advised that <br />1539 <br />either the fence went in or not and it would be similar to the last process. <br />1540 <br />Given tonight’s discussion, Member Cunningham stated that she felt strongly about <br />1541 <br />Condition 1.B in accordance with that of the IU based on the conditions originally applied <br />1542 <br />to that IU.Member Cunningham stated that she would prefer the motion to include a <br />1543 <br />change to Condition 3 that the doors remain closed during hours of operation. <br />1544 <br />Member Daire agreed with that change; along with another amendment to change the <br />1545 <br />fence height from 6.5’ to 8’. <br />1546 <br />First Amendment to the Motion <br />1547 <br />MemberCunningham moved, seconded by MemberBull to recommend to the City <br />1548 <br />Council an amendment to the original motion as follows: <br />1549 <br />Condition 3: Revise to read: “\[If the city receives complaints and can verify <br />1550 <br />excessive noise beyond the property boundary from open doors, the <br />1551 <br />Community Development Department is authorized to require production area <br />1552 <br />doors remain shutduring limited production and processing <br />1553 <br />operations/activities that are generating sound.\]\[Production area doors shall <br />1554 <br />be closed during limited production and processing operations.\] <br />1555 <br />Member Murphy stated that, while he was sympathetic to noise concerns, if and when it <br />1556 <br />became a problem, staff should measure it with a meter for a clear determination. <br />1557 <br />Member Murphy noted that the city was unable to address garbage trucks beyond that of <br />1558 <br />other businesses, and opined that an existing mechanism was already in place citywide. <br />1559 <br />Therefore, Member Murphy stated that he could not see any need to change it specific to <br />1560 <br />this use or case given that there were not violations evidenced from the property yet. <br />1561 <br />Member Bull stated that the reason he was supportive of this amendment is that this is a <br />1562 <br />permanent CU beyond today’s use but as it moves forward, it could involve many other <br />1563 <br />things, including noise, vapors, or other things that may prove difficult for city staff to <br />1564 <br />address.Member Bull opined that there could be many environmental factors going into <br />1565 <br />the CU for limited production that could be negated by simply having the doors closed <br />1566 <br />during their operation. <br />1567 <br />Member Gitzen expressed his respectful disagreement, opining that Condition 3 handled <br />1568 <br />things as noted by Member Murphy and were reasonable as stated without any additional <br />1569 <br />criteria. <br />1570 <br />Member Cunningham noted that the citymay processes and code in place to address <br />1571 <br />and ultimately enforce issues, she noted that they didn’t have also didn’t have unlimited <br />1572 <br />resources with whichto do so.Member Cunningham referenced comments of residents <br />1573 <br />stating they had made similar complaints but were told that the city was unable to enforce <br />1574 <br />the problems without more proof.Member Cunningham opined that it would be difficult <br />1575 <br />for neighbors, as well as the city to have staff available 24/7 and measure something via <br />1576 <br /> <br />