Laserfiche WebLink
�12 <br />13 <br />� 114 <br />115 <br />116 <br />117 <br />118 <br />119 <br />120 <br />121 <br />122 <br />123 <br />124 <br />125 <br />126 <br />127 <br />128 <br />129 <br />130 <br />131 <br />132 <br />133 <br />134 <br />135 <br />136 <br />137 <br />138 <br />�Z9 <br />;0 <br />141 <br />142 <br />143 <br />144 <br />145 <br />146 <br />147 <br />148 <br />149 <br />150 <br />151 <br />152 <br />153 <br />154 <br />155 <br />156 <br />157 <br />158 <br />159 <br />160 <br />161 <br />162 <br />163 <br />164 <br />��5 <br />, � <br />_ 1 <br />Discussion ensued briefly regarding the process in pursuing the previous motion, <br />amending it further or the maker and seconder of the motion withdrawing it and new <br />motions and/or amendments considered by the body. <br />At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Ms. Collins clarified staff's perspective based on <br />the discovery between Commission meetings; and specifically staff's review for <br />positioning the fence installation along the northern lot line. Ms. Collins advised that <br />staff's due diligence included an extensive review of documents on file and past records. <br />After staff's analysis, Ms. Collins stated that staff was not in a position to comfortabiy <br />recommend that a fence be installed along the northern lot line due to the issues <br />addressed by Senior Planner Lloyd. Ms. Collins advised that staff's recommendation <br />would be to address the original intent and concern with original conditions for approval <br />were for the purpose of screening parking areas, as it would do so for any limited <br />production/processing use, with those options provided in the March 2, 2016 staff report. <br />However, N1s. Collins stated that staff was uncomfortabPe with Option B for fence <br />installation on the lot line, following their further due diligence, based on some challenges <br />with the potential easement for the underground cable line and overhead power lines. <br />Therefore, given that situation, Ms. Collins advised that staff could not recommend that <br />property line as the ideal location to instai( the fence. Ms. Collins further referenced city <br />code that didn't always specify the exact fence location or setback due to site-specific <br />challenges, allowing for discretion and some maneuverability for the applicant. Ms. <br />Collins noted that staff's basic concern had been and continued to be the fence's <br />screening of the Vogel Mechanical parking lot for the benefit of adjacent residential <br />properties. <br />At the request of Chair Boguszewski; Ms. Collins confirmed that staff supported and <br />recommended Option C rather than Option B as detailed i� the March 2, 2016 staff report <br />and described as follows <br />Option 1:C Stanclard BufferScreeninq <br />a. A solid opaque cedar fence approximately 6.5' in height sha!! be installed north of the <br />existing eastern parking lot to scr�en the lot, including delivery and dock doors and the <br />refuse/recycling areas.: <br />b. Additional landscaping shall be installed in and around the berm adjacent to the front <br />employee and customer parking lot .fo more fuUy screen headlights from view of the <br />adjacent residentially zoned properfies. <br />Membar Cunningham referenced the comments of interim Community Development <br />Director Col�ins when stated staff's stance, and stating that staff could not affirm the <br />fence along the property.line due to concerns with a"potential" easement. Member <br />Cunningham sought clarifieation, stating that she had never heard it referred to as a <br />"potential easement, but had understood an easement was in place. <br />Ms: Collins advised that staff and the commission had been recipients of a"draft <br />encroachment agreement,° apparently provided by CenturyLink to Vogel Mechanical, <br />creating the supposition that there was an easement in place. However, with staff still <br />unable to uncover that document nor could anyone provide such an easement agreement <br />to staff, Ms. Collins advised that the easement agreement remained hypothetical, causing <br />staff to hesitate in making a decision based on supposition. Therefore, Ms. Collins noted <br />that the city was unable to affirm whether or not a fence can or cannot be installed on the <br />property line on that easement without first having staff and the city's legal counsel <br />review the document. <br />As with other permitted uses, Ms. Collins noted that the city could therefore only state <br />some variability based on the certain risk a property owner assumes in placing a fence. If <br />there are no easement issues and no potential issues with CenturyLink's underground <br />cabl�, t�1s. Coiiins opined inat it seemed the fence option now supported by staf'f (Option <br />