CC_Minutes_2016_0411 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

�80 31 �82 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 2y1 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 �7 .,J8 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 �33 34 While she would not characterize the area as a"drainage ditch, Member Cunningham opined that photos provided evidence of significant standing water, and she shared Member Bull's concerns. Member Gitzen stated his concurrence with Chair Boguszewski's hypothesis related to removal or retention of fences. Ntember Gitzen opined that this fence installation needed to be tied directly back to this CU application and city code requirements for it and any other businesses requesting a CU and the standards that apply. Chair Boguszewski reiterated that if this CU application stands alone without any of the past IU history, it should be considered as such, and consideration of staff's recommendation for Condition Option C and additional landscaping. However, Chair Boguszewski noted that the commission had been in the midst of voting on Option B at its March meeting. With respect to past deliberations, Member Bulf stated his agreement for fencing around the parking area within 10' or some type of ineasurement allowing some flexibility but aiso some rigidity as well. At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Member Bull ciarified that he could support staff's recommendation if the fence (blue line) was within 10' of the parking area, but no further away to still address angied beams from vehicles in the parking area. Member Daire suggested installing the cedar fence consistent with and up to the building face on the north side, leaving approximately 32' between the north property line and chain link fence, and thereby using the building as part of the screening. At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Ms. Collins and Mr. Lloyd noted that some berming and landscaping was already in place beiween the Vogel north property line and the parking lot, recently instailed by the Vogels. Ms. Collins also pointed out the location of the existing chain link fencing and the building itself. Discussion ensued a�out fence location options in relationship to the building and various property lines. Member Cunningham stated her preference for the motion as restated from the March meeting, aven more so after tonight's discussion than before. While recognizing that the original condition was part of the IU approval and a separate issue from this CU appiication, Member Currningham stated her original reasoning for wanting the fence in the same location as the previous chain link fence remained the same, and further noted that factors nor the neighborhood had changed. Member Cunningham expressed her strong belief thaE the fence needed to be installed on the property line; and while she had been searching for a more tangible reason or proof for the fence to not be located on the north property line, she was unable to do so. Member Cunningham stated that she found everything else brought before the commission to be very speculative in nature, and was unable to make her decision based on speculation. Whether or not the easement actually exists, Member Cunningham stated that she firmiy believed it was in the best interest of the neighbors and the Vogels to install the fence along the property line (yellow line). Chair Boguszewski noted that, as stated before, this request is a CU application, not an IU application and will attach to the property and will remain with the property in perpetuity pending City Council ultimately decides and whether or not they follow the Planning Commission's recommendation.