Laserfiche WebLink
'� 91 <br />�2 <br />:�93 <br />394 <br />395 <br />396 <br />397 <br />398 <br />399 <br />400 <br />401 <br />402 <br />403 <br />404 <br />405 <br />406 <br />407 <br />408 <br />409 <br />410 <br />411 <br />412 <br />413 <br />414 <br />415 <br />416 <br />417 <br />l8 <br />.19 <br />420 <br />421 <br />422 <br />423 <br />424 <br />425 <br />426 <br />427 <br />428 <br />429 <br />430 <br />431 <br />432 <br />433 <br />434 <br />435 <br />436 <br />437 <br />438 <br />439 <br />440 <br />441 <br />442 <br />443 <br />��44 <br />4S <br />446 <br />Production areas doors shal4 be closed during limited produ��aon and <br />processing operati�ons. <br />Member Bull noted that since a CU follows the property, future permitted uses for limited <br />production/processing could entail additional environmental factors beyond sound for <br />measurement at the lot line; and while possibly intermittent may prove impactful for <br />adjacent residential properties. <br />If such a condition is added for this CU application, Member Murphy asked if it was then <br />the intent of this commission to add this as a conditio,n or constraint for all such city-wide <br />uses in the future. <br />Member Cunningham responded affirmatively, if sucl� a use is located this close to a <br />residential neighborhood where their health, welfare ar�d sa�ety could be impacted. <br />Chair Boguszewski clarified that this commission d�d not se�ve in the role of a tort court; <br />and while this may be comparable, opined thaf the body woufd not be channeling future <br />discussion intent on resorting to this for future uses. <br />Member Murphy noted that in this situation, the loading dock doors face to the east and <br />therefore sound would be channeled in that direcfian onto that commercial property. <br />Member Murphy stated that he didn't share the concerns expressed by the makers of the <br />motion, and suggested it simply opened the door'to further contention. <br />Member Bull noted that this was a smali part o€ the Vogel Mechanical operatiori, but <br />clarified that he was thinking of future businesses; and further clarified that the condition <br />only spoke to a limited time for door closures during processing operations, as intended <br />by the specific �anguage of the amendment. <br />Chair Boguszewski skated that a combination of the comments expressed by Members <br />Bull and Cunningham haw swayed him to agree with their position. <br />AM'�NDME�IT <br />Ayes: 4 (Gi#zen, Cunningham, Boguszewski, �ul�) <br />tVays: 2 (Daire; Murg�hy) <br />Abstentions: 1 (Kimble) <br />Motion carried. <br />ORIGINAL MOTION RESTATED AS A'�119�NDED <br />M�mber Murphy moved, seconded by 141ember Gitzen to recommend to th� City <br />Council approval of a CONDITIOPdAL USE allowing limited production and <br />processing as an accessory use at 2830 Fairview Avenue, based on the comments <br />anc! findings contaened, and subject to stated coraditions for approval as detail�d in <br />the,staff reports dated March 2 and April 6, 2016; amended as follows: <br />• A solid �paque cedar fence approximately 6.5' in heeght shal/ be enstalled north <br />of the existing eastern parking lot fo screen the /ot, including delivery and dock <br />doors and the refuse/recycling areas. <br />• Additional landscaping shall be installed in and around fhe berm adjacent to <br />the front employee and customer parking lot to more fully screen headlig6�ts <br />from view of the adjacent residentially zaned properfies. <br />• A/l required screening shall be install�ed no later #han July 29, 2016. <br />• Production areas c�oors �hall be closed durir�g limited production and <br />processing operations. <br />Discussion ensued as to the intent and clarification of the motion for installation of the <br />fence and allowing some flexibility as previously discussed. <br />