2016-04-06_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, March 2, 2016 Page 33 Discussion ensued as to fence height, with Mr. Paschke clarifying that the Board of 1625 Appeals had modified the fence height in the IU to 6.5’ as documented for various 1626 reasons.Mr. Paschke advised that the Commission would therefore need to increase that 1627 condition from the City Council’s 6.5’ to 8’ again for the CU. 1628 Further discussion ensued as to the preference for a 6.5’ or 8’ fence height, with Mr. 1629 Paschke advising that thefence height could not be 8’ as it is not allowed in the CMU 1630 zoning district, and currently only allowed in the Industrial District as this parcel was 1631 previously zoned, thus the existence of the original 8’ high fence.Mr. Paschke clarified 1632 that the original fence installation was part of a past reconstruction by Ramsey County of 1633 County Road C to serve as a noise barrier, proscribed under a separate section of code. 1634 In commercial areas, Mr. Paschke advised that code generally indicates a 6.5’ height 1635 standard. 1636 Chair Boguszewski asked if Member Daire wished to withdraw his second amendment 1637 given this new information. 1638 Member Cunningham expressed her hesitancy to do so, opining that the Commission 1639 needed to make that 8’ height recommendation to the City Councilin this situation. 1640 Chair Boguszewski noted that the Commission could recommend the 8’ height, but the 1641 City Council could take subsequent steps to change that height under their authority. 1642 Member Cunningham expressed her strong feeling that it should be an8’ fence between 1643 the residential and commercial properties; and opined that she wouldn’t being doing her 1644 job as a Planning Commissioner without stating her support for that height versus the 1645 height of 6.5’. 1646 Member Murphy noted that the previous chain linkfence was 6.5’ tied into an 8’ fence. 1647 Chair Boguszewski noted that it was decided by the Commission that 6.5’ was not 1648 sufficient. 1649 Member Gitzen opined that 6.5’ was reasonable and 8’ is not as well as being outside 1650 current zoning code and therefore unreasonable for the Commission to require. 1651 Member Murphy noted that there was a motion still on the floor that had not been 1652 withdrawn. 1653 Since the 6.5’ height is within code provisions, Member Bullstated his preference within 1654 those bounds, noting if he weighed an 8’ barrier and what he would want in his back 1655 residential yard, he would want the 6.5’ height. 1656 Member Stellmach stated he would support the 8’ height, but since it didn’t comply with 1657 city code, he would decide with stick with complying city code. 1658 Second Amendment to the MotionRestated 1659 Member Daire moved, seconded by Member Cunningham, recommending to the 1660 City Council an amendment as follows: 1661 Condition 1.B.a: Revise to read as follows: “A solid opaque Cedar fence 1662 approximately8’in height shall be installed on the northern edge of the property” 1663 Ayes: 2(Cunningham and Boguszewski) 1664 Nays: 5(Stellmach, Daire, Murphy, Gitzen and Bull) 1665 Motion failed. 1666 Third Amendment to the Motion 1667 Member Bullmoved, seconded by Member Cunningham, recommending to the City 1668 Council an amendment as follows: 1669 Condition 1.B revised to include the wording of Condition 1.C.b as part of CU 1670 approval and including language that “if business capacity increases in the 1671 future, additional screening would need to be added to the front of the 1672 building.” 1673