2014-07-09_PC_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, June 4, 2014 Page 18 Member Daire, with his background in transportation planning, and work with MnDOT on 868 attenuation walls, advised that part of that working knowledge from MnDOT was that 869 while trees –particularly coniferoustrees –provide a visual screen, they did nothing for 870 sound.Member Daire noted that this was found to be similar with a 6’ –8’ board fence, 871 and that both had minimal impact on sound attenuation.In order to have that attenuation, 872 Member Daire advised that a mass of wall similar to that found on freeway sound barrier 873 fences was needed, and included two timber surfaces infilled with dirt to attenuate sound. 874 Member Daire advised that this knowledge caused him to pursue this train of thought; 875 and while the barrier may look better, it did nothing to reduce sound. 876 Member Boguszewski recognized Member Daire’s opinion and expertise. 877 Mr. Lloyd reiterated that Zoning Code would require this type of screening anyway; but 878 opined that there would be no harm in making it a condition of approval, and while not 879 inventing a solution, it would simply make that code requirement more explicit. 880 Member Boguszewski advised that everything mentioned by Member Daire he believed 881 to be true, but recognized that it was not realistic to require a condition that would meet 882 the specifications mentioned.However, Member Boguszewski opined that he still felt 883 right about imposing such a condition, and at risk, it would be merely cosmetic, but he still 884 wanted to keep it as an additional condition to the original motion.Member Boguszewski 885 suggested that, if the Commission preferred to approve the motion without that additional 886 condition, they should vote against the current motion and someone else could move to 887 approve a motion as originally proposed by staff. 888 Member Murphyproposed a different route to get to the same goal. 889 MOTION 890 Member Murphymoved, seconded by Member Daire to recommend to the City 891 Council APPROVAL of an INTERIM USE at 2830 Fairview Avenue, allowing limited 892 production and processing of sheet metal ductwork and accessories; based on the 893 comments and findings of Sections 4 –6 and the recommendation of Section 7 of 894 the staff report dated June 4, 2014. 895 Member Cunningham opined that there was something to be said for the neighborhood 896 abutting this area; and when the zoning was changed to HDR,opined that it was more 897 fitting with this neighborhood in providing a buffer.Member Cunningham opined that 898 adding the wall as a condition was good. 899 Ayes: 2(Daire and Murphy) 900 Nays: 4 (Gisselquist, Stellmach, Cunningham, Boguszewski) 901 Motion failed. 902 MOTION 903 Member Boguszewskimoved, seconded by Member Gisselquistto recommend to 904 the City Council APPROVAL of an INTERIM USE at 2830 Fairview Avenue, allowing 905 limited production and processing of sheet metal ductwork and accessories; 906 based on the comments and findings of Sections 4 –6 and the recommendation of 907 Section 7 of the staff report dated June 4, 2014; amended as follows: 908 Additional Condition: 909 “The applicant shall install opaque fencing of 6’ –8’ in height and/or 910 Coniferous plantingsor landscapingalong the northern edge of the 911 properties.” 912 Ayes: 6 913 Nays: 0 914 Motion carried. 915 This case istentativelyscheduled to be heard at the City Council on June 23, 2014. 916