CC_Minutes_2016_0411 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

�35 >6 ._,37 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 - �2 ',3 .s64 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 '� �8 � ..�0 Ms. Collins reiterated that, with the mature landscaping already in place between the driveway and blue line shown on the map, the fence installation would need to take that into consideration even though more extensive landscaping would still be required. For the benefit of Member Cunningham, Member Murphy noted that it was obvious in viewing the area that a fence had previously been in place and was now clearly missing. However, as a matter of principle, Member Murphy asked Member Cunningham if the city should adhere to a consistent set of standards unless there was an overriding concern. Member Murphy opined that, in this case and with this particular property he was unable to see that concern. Based on his calculations, Member Murphy noted there was approximately 30' between the blue line on the map and northern property line, causing him to question any safety concerns for children accessing that area, especially with the essentially flat terrain of the property. Member Murphy spoke of a"one-size-fits- all" requirement in city code for property owners and ,fence instal�ations, including the Vogels; opining that staff's recommendation serves that consistency and was appropriate for the intent of the fence to cover' the parking Iot and dock areas, and allowing for some flexibility north of the existing parking lot and serves the neighborhood and business well. Member Murphy noted the existence of some immature landscaping to the west that could be strengthened that could be covered by motion. Specific to the condition that all required screening be installed no later than June 30, 2016, Member Murphy questioned if thaf date sti3i allowed realistic compliance for the applicant, given that another month had ensu�d awaiting resolution of this issue. Member Murphy suggested extending that date to July 29, 2016 to allow additional working days for the Vogels and their contractors #o accomplish the task. Chair Boguszewski recognized:�he applicant representative(s) in the audience regarding whether they could accomplish th� work byJune 30, 2016, with the applicant expressing no preference for a June or Ju�y c�mpletion date, leaving it at the discretion of the commission. Members Daire and Murphy withdrew their motion from the March 2, 2016 meeting, leaving no motion curre�tly on the tabie. MaTI�V (lin�s 96 —101. of staff report dated April 6, 20�l6) iVl�r�ber Murphy m�ved, second�ed by Member Gitzen to recommer�d i� the Ciiy Counci9 approval of a CON�9TIONAL USE allowing limited production a�d processing as an a�ce5sory use at 2830 Fairview Avenue, based on the comm�rots and findings contaan�d, and su�ject t� stated conditions for approval as d�etail�d in the staff reports dated March 2 ansl Aprii 6, 2016; amended as followrs (lines 72 — 77 of sfaff report.dated Apri16, 2016): • A solid opac�ue cedar fence approximately 6.5' in height shall be insfa/led norfh of the existing eastern parking lot to screen the lof, including de/ivery and ��o�ck doors and the refuse/recycling areas. • Additional:landscaping shall be insfalled in and arou►�d fhe berm adjacent to the, front employee and cusfomer parking lof to more fully screen laeadlights from yiew of the adjacent residentlally zonecA properties. • All requir�ed screening si�aU be installed no later than July 29, 20�6. At the request of his colleagues, Member Murphy ciarified that it was his intent to exclude Condition C(lines 108-109) from his motion, noting this would be addressed by existing city code in verifying any excessive noises based on complaints through the city's noise ordinance or other requirements. AMEIVDM�NT TO �'HE MOTION (lines 1�D8-109 of staff report dated April 6, 2016) iVlember Bull moved, seconded by IlAernber Cunningham an additional coradition as foilows: