2016-03-02_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 2, 2016 Page 15 consult with the City Council in 2019 at its expiration; but reiterated that it didn’t create 709 any conflict of confusion; and expressed his interpretation that the applicant would prefer 710 the most permanent option available. 711 When the applicant originally applied for the 5-year IU, Member Cunningham questioned 712 if that approval was for light manufacturing use. 713 Mr. Paschke clarified that the use was limited production/process for Vogel Mechanical to 714 occupy the site; but to-date they haven’t begun that operation on site. 715 When he visited the site several times, Member Daire noted he had originally observed a 716 chain link fence 32’ from the fence line; and understood there was an easement for 717 power lines running along the north line of the Vogel property; with the new fence shifted 718 over 15 when past that property, basically running down the middle of that space. 719 Member Daire questioned if the previous business didn’t anticipate any kind of use in that 720 space from Fairview Avenue to the east. 721 Mr. Paschke stated that he was unable to agree with that interpretation, and displayed 722 the map showing the location of the security fence for the former use and vehicle parking. 723 Mr. Paschke advise that, to his knowledge, this site had developed prior to any 724 residences in the vicinity; and stated that he could not address at what point the power 725 lines were installed. However, Mr. Paschke advised that neither precluded a fence being 726 installed since there was already one in place along those residential properties north of 727 Vogels parcel. However, while not precluded, Mr. Paschke noted there were issues and 728 concerns, and other potential constraints that the Vogels had in placing a fence within the 729 easement. 730 In walking the site earlier today, Member Daire further noted that a number of Coniferous 731 trees had been planted inside the chain link fence and north of the current parking lot and 732 previous chain link fence location that used to run along the north property line that had 733 since been removed. Member Daire noted apparent resurveying of the property and 734 correct identification of the property line and set of stakes defining 1’ south of the marked 735 property line; former shading vegetation growing at the fence now being cut, and large 736 trees cut right at the property line allowing an orange snow fence running along where 737 the chain link fence used to be, now seems to define the property line. Member Daire 738 opined that a 6.5’ fence erected along that line or 1’ south of the property line would be 739 sufficient to shield abutting residences from headlights, thereby negating the need for a 740 berm at the parking lot. 741 Mr. Paschke advised that the berm was already in place and additional landscaping 742 installed at the parking lot, noting that had been a condition of the previous IU approval. 743 As it relates to the location of the fence, Mr. Paschke reiterated previous City Council 744 requirements, subsequently reconfirmed, that the fence was required to be installed at 745 the northern edge of the Vogel property. While no distance had been translated 746 otherwise, the understanding was clear that the IU required it be as near to that line as 747 possible and as generally proposed by the applicant. 748 Member Stellmach stated that he was still trying to understand how much more intense of 749 a use or uses could be permitted at this site if the CU passed versus this proposed use 750 and only one employee doing the work. Member Stellmach asked if the CU could permit 751 15 more employees in the future doing this same work and the use becoming more 752 intense and possibly problematic. 753 Mr. Paschke clarified that city code didn’t limit the number of employees, but the activity 754 being conducted and addressed noise and other impacts to adjacent properties. Mr. 755 Paschke further clarified that the Vogel Mechanical business was not in the primary 756 business of fabricating the components they used in their business, and this limited use 757 by one employee would only involve very specialized applications as needed over time, 758 but not the primary use of the business. 759