2016-04-06_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, March 2, 2016 Page 34 Chair Boguszewski asked, if language of Condition 1.B.A was in effect, why additional 1674 language in 1.C.b wouldbe necessary. 1675 Member Bull responded that it would serve to provide additional screening. 1676 Member Murphy clarified that it was his understanding that the berm had already been 1677 installed north of the parking lot running from east to west. 1678 Member Murphy advised that his motion to amend was intended to screen the front of the 1679 building from lights coming from traffic on Fairview Avenue. 1680 With thatclearer understanding, Member Cunningham withdrew her second from the 1681 third amendment, 1682 Chair Boguszewski asked staff if that new proposed condition was governed under 1683 existing code requiring provision for protective screening. 1684 Mr. Paschke responded that, in some instances where the code required landscaping 1685 form adjacent properties, this amendment would not qualify as such.Given the design of 1686 that parking area, Mr. Paschke stated that it would be difficult to screen it from the road or 1687 properties across the street effectively.If added as a condition of CU approval, Mr. 1688 Paschke advised that staff would need to review that more carefully to determine that 1689 condition and its enforcement, specifically how to screen along Fairview Avenue.Mr. 1690 Paschke noted thatthe greater concern was in addressing lighting extending to 1691 residential properties and staying within the CMU-1 zoning district standards. 1692 Members Bull and Cunningham withdrew their original third amendment to the 1693 motion, and offered a new amendment. 1694 Third Amendment #2to the Motion 1695 Member Bull moved, seconded by Member Cunningham, recommending to the City 1696 Council an amendment as follows: 1697 New Condition requiring screening along Fairview Avenue with shrubbery to 1698 block headlights of traffic in and out of parking areas to the building. 1699 Member Murphy spoke against the motion, noting that as per the Attachment A map, if 1700 working a late shift and pulling out of the parking lot, headlights would obviously point into 1701 the warehouse area and not along Centennial Drive.Member Murphy further noted that 1702 the city had other businesses in town with vehicles coming and going at all hours; and 1703 this would serve no benefit for the residential neighborhood while increasing costs for the 1704 Vogel property owner. Member Murphy opinedthat the east-west berm was redundant 1705 and a north/south berm served no further purpose.Given the proximity of the Vogel 1706 property to Fairview Avenue, a road under Ramsey County’s jurisdiction, Member 1707 Murphy opined that any plantings wouldn’t survive anyway. 1708 Chair Boguszewski agreed with Member Murphy’s comments. 1709 Ayes: 1(Bull) 1710 Nays: 6(Cunningham, Stellmach, Daire, Murphy, Gitzen and Boguszewski) 1711 Motion failed. 1712 ORIGINAL MOTION Restated asAmended 1713 MemberDaire moved, seconded by MemberMurphy to recommend to the City 1714 Council approval of a CONDITIONAL USE allowing limited production and 1715 processing as an accessory use at 2830 Fairview Avenue, based on the comments 1716 and findings contained, and subject to stated conditions for approval as detailed in 1717 the staff report dated March 2, 2016; amended as follows: 1718 Condition 1.B is the option recommended, in addition to Condition 2as stated, 1719 and Condition 3 as amended: 1720 Condition 3: Revised to read: “Production area doors shall be closed during 1721 limited production and processing operations.” 1722