2014-07-09_PC_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, June 4, 2014 Page 17 MOTION 818 Member Boguszewskimoved, seconded by Member Gisselquistto recommend to 819 the City Council APPROVAL of an INTERIM USE at 2830 Fairview Avenue, allowing 820 limited production and processing of sheetmetal ductwork and accessories; 821 based on the comments and findings of Sections 4 –6 and the recommendation of 822 Section 7 ofthe staff report dated June 4, 2014; amended as follows: 823 Additional Condition: 824 “The applicant shall install structures or landscaping that providesvisual 825 screening and sound attenuation for the residential properties on Centennial 826 Drive.” 827 Member Daire asked Member Boguszewski to define “sound attenuation.” 828 Member Murphy also asked how the applicant would know when they met that condition 829 without some measure in place, or if the neighbor installed a fence, how would the 830 Planning Commission or staff know ifor how the condition was met. 831 At the request of Member Boguszewski, Mr. Paschke reviewed the minimum standards 832 for fence height per City Code, and screening for purpose of mitigating sound, opining 833 that it became difficult for code compliance considerations even with a fence, and 834 landscaping of coniferous plantings that may be staggered initially.While having 835 standards in place. Mr. Paschke suggested it may be best to have the condition state “ a 836 mixture of opaque fencing or mixture f coniferous landscaping” to get to the heart of the 837 issue, noise mitigation, since a wall may not be cost effective or effective to mitigate that 838 noise.Mr. Paschke advised that there may be noise, no matter what was required, but a 839 fence of 6’ to 8’ was the best situation, and would mitigate noise somewhat and 840 coniferous trees would do so in the winter time, but recognized that it may take several 841 years for them to grow to substantial height.Mr. Paschke advised that City Code also 842 talked about opaqueness, with a solid board on board fence as an example, which would 843 address noise and/or screening purposes. 844 Member Boguszewski offered revised language to his additional condition in the original 845 motion as follows: 846 “The applicant shall install opaque fencing of 6’ –8’ in height and/or 847 Coniferous plantingsor landscapingalong the northern edge of the 848 properties.” 849 Mr. Paschke opined that the biggest screening and noise issue was in the back parking 850 lot, which was not generating noise but had little landscaping; and suggested that the 851 proposed Coniferous landscaping on the north of the parking lot would address any 852 headlight issues, and if worded accordingly would provide staff the flexibility to address 853 where those plantings were located for the most effect, and not end up screening the 854 building only. 855 As a point of clarification, Member Daire asked Member Boguszewski his intent as to 856 whether screening is necessary or only responding to a concern that the cost of such will 857 bepassed on to Vogel Sheetmetal. 858 Member Boguszewski opined that it was better with the additional condition, and whether 859 it was a necessity or not, he couldn’t determine, but he believed that this type of language 860 –landscaping and fencing –would add something to what was now existing, and provide 861 direction to seek improvements to create a barrier.Member Boguszewski expressed his 862 preference that the whole swath between homes and the band to the south would 863 become HDR as a step up zone between single-family and industrial, but noted that it 864 hasn’t happened yet; and now with consideration being given to changing the zoning to 865 allow zero buffers from that zone to the residential zone, at the very least consideration 866 should be given to this type of protective condition as a veneer rather than only a patch. 867