CC_Minutes_2016_0411 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

'68 _69 170 171 172 1'73 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 95 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 �22 223 1.C) would provide those variables. Ms. Collins reiterated that the intent was to satisfy screening for adjacent residential properties by screening overhead and vehicle lights for this limited processing/production use. However, Ms. Collins further opined that whether or not the fence installation was required on the lot line or 10' off was irrelevant as long as it served the purpose of screening the parking area. From her personal perspective, Member Cunningham noted that when considering the original Vogel IU application, she had originally supported installation of the fence along the property line, mot just to screen headlights, but also to address her concerns related to potential double fence barriers and protecting the comfort level for the adjacent residential neighborhood. Member Cunningham recognized that headlights may be an issue, but wanted the record to show that this was not her only concern with or the intent in her support for fence installation on the property line. Member Daire stated his recollection was that the original chain link fence on the property line had since been removed, and had belonged to the former property owner Aramark, and inherited by the Vogels upon their purchase of the property. Ms. Collins advised that she was not aware of that information. Member Cunningham stated that the corrimission had been told that in past meetings. With removal of that fence, Member Daire advised'that it left residential backyards open to what the commission had perceived as an easement area for underground utilities and overhead power lines. IVlember Murphy advised that he had sought permission from the Vogels today and had walked the property, noting that a chain linfc fence is fh�re along the north edge of the parking lot, but not �n the proper#y (ine. For verification purposes, Chair Boguszewski reviewed each of the three options detailed on the aerial map being displayed and potential fence locations. Discussion ensued �eBa�ed to. inierpretation of the options outlined in the staff report, specifically the length of the fence east/west and staff's revised recommendation (lines 67 — 77) of the Apri1 6, 2016 staff report; and the length of the fence in relationship to the building and screenF�g of the parking area(s) with additional landscaping and berming. Member Daire referenced public comment from the March Commission meeting, with parents expressing safeEy concern if there was an area between the Vogel fence and those instalied by residential property owners. Member Daire asked if approval was given for installaiion of the fence (blue line on map) screening the parking area but not on the north properky line (yellow line on map), would residential property owners be responsible for installing their own fences on their property lines. If that was the case, Member Daire asked if responsibility then evolved to residential property owners for protecting animais and(or children in the area between the ultimate location for the Vogel fence installation and the property lines of adjacent residential property owners who may choose to install a fence on their property lines. Ms. Collins responded that, if those residents felt the need to provide additional screenings, they could make that choice and follow city code requirements seeking a permit for such a fence installation. Ms. Collins suggested this may be one of the variables the commission chose to consider when determining a selected option this evening. When the city considers public health, safety and welfare in the community, Ms. Collins noted that it was a subjective look. Therefore, Ms. Collins suggested that the commission may wish to address ihe concerns expressed by some neignbors as part of