Laserfiche WebLink
Regular Planning CommissionMeeting <br />Minutes –Wednesday, March 2, 2016 <br /> <br />Page 32 <br />meter at that time, particularly noise that she would find difficult to enforce.Member <br />1577 <br />Cunningham further opined that the problems could simply be prevented and issues <br />1578 <br />avoided betweenneighbors if this was implemented, thus her suggested revisions. <br />1579 <br />Member Murphy asked if the intent of the motion was to preclude the doors being open <br />1580 <br />on a warm, summer day when no noise was being generated. <br />1581 <br />Member Cunningham responded that it was not the intent, and that the doors were to be <br />1582 <br />shut only when they’re producing noise was being generated. <br />1583 <br />Member Murphy asked if he drove by and they happened to accidently drop a heating <br />1584 <br />unit off the truckduring loading or unloading, would that serve as a valid production and <br />1585 <br />one-time noise violation. <br />1586 <br />Member Cunningham stated her preference that the city would say “no.” <br />1587 <br />Member Murphy used another example, if they were bending metal in one bay and <br />1588 <br />loading from another bay, could they not load on that same day if producing in another <br />1589 <br />bay or would they need to do so on another day even though it was occurring in another <br />1590 <br />bay. <br />1591 <br />With all due respect, Member Cunningham opined that this was over thinking the issue. <br />1592 <br />Member Murphy disagreed, opining that he was speaking against the amendment since <br />1593 <br />to him the CU was black and white, and noting that other mechanisms were already in <br />1594 <br />place if noise is found to be problematic. <br />1595 <br />Member Cunningham expressed her respectful disagreement with that opinion. <br />1596 <br />Chair Boguszewski suggested that this concerned the general nature of doors versus <br />1597 <br />specific doors and what may be happening behind them.If adding Member <br />1598 <br />Cunningham’s comments to those of Member Bull, Chair Boguszewski opined that he <br />1599 <br />would be more generally in favor of their amendment.However, Chair Boguszewski <br />1600 <br />asked if it would be too much to take it further to require that production area doors <br />1601 <br />remain closed during limited production; and asked if that would address Member <br />1602 <br />Murphy’s concerns. <br />1603 <br />While recognizing Chair Boguszewski’s attempt to gain consensus, Member Murphy <br />1604 <br />stated that his thought process was that the city currently uses a complaint-driven <br />1605 <br />process citywide and they should view this use and CU application as they do the rest of <br />1606 <br />the city versus distinguishing it. <br />1607 <br />Chair Boguszewski stated his dislike of the complaint-driven nature of enforcing code at <br />1608 <br />this time. <br />1609 <br />First Amendment to the MotionRestated <br />1610 <br />MemberCunningham moved, seconded by MemberBull to recommend to the City <br />1611 <br />Council an amendment as follows: <br />1612 <br />Condition 3: Revise to read: \[‘Production area doors shall be closed during <br />1613 <br />limited production and processing operations.’\] <br />1614 <br />Ayes:4 (Stellmach, Cunningham, Bull and Boguszewski) <br />1615 <br />Nays: 3 (Murphy, Daire and Gitzen) <br />1616 <br />Motion carried. <br />1617 <br />Second Amendment to the Motion <br />1618 <br />Member Daire moved, seconded by Member Cunningham, recommending to the <br />1619 <br />City Council an amendment as follows: <br />1620 <br />Condition 1.B.a: Revise to read as follows: \[“A solid opaque Cedar fence <br />1621 <br />approximately 6-1/2’\[8’\] in height shall be installed on the northern edge of the <br />1622 <br />property.”\]\[and as clarified by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals on <br />1623 <br />January 25, 2016.\] <br />1624 <br /> <br />