CC_Minutes_2016_0411 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

�47 E8 +49 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 �4 ,'S 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 49n9 r /O �l Ms. Collins advised that the applicant (Vogel Mechanical) would need to apply for a screening fence permit, triggering initial staff review prior to issuing the permit, based on approved CU conditions and in accordance with current city code provisions. In this specific case, Ms. Collins confirmed that the fence would be located sornewhere north of the blue line indicated on the displayed map. Member Gitzen reiterated that the City Council had final approval rights after receiving this body's recommendation. ORIGIIVAL MOTION AS AMENDED Ayes: 3 (Gitzen, Murph�, Daire) Nays: 3 (Cunningham, Boguszewski, Bull) Abstentions: 1 (&(imble) Motion failed. � Chair Boguszewski addressed his interpretakion of this vote, opin�ng that latitude seems to arise related to the narrow "no man's land" as the area between potential fences was described. Chair Boguszewski stated that his main reasoning for no# wanting the fence further north than the blue line was based on his original support for fence installation within 10' of the northern lot line, or further south all the way to the edge of the parking lot, as supported by Member Bull. In addressing the concerns of Member Cunningham supporting the original IU condition for .location of the fence (Option B), Chair Boguszewski noted that concerns were valid in transitioning between this property and that ofi the adjacent residential neighborhood, especially with the CU staying with the property. Therefore, Chair Boguszewski opined tFiat fence installation along the north property boundary (yellow line on map) was more conservative than Option C(blue line) or a variant 10' from the parking lot. iVEW iNO�'I.O�1 Nlembe� Cunningham rn�ved, seconded by M�mber Bull to recommend t� th� City Courtcil approva6 of a CONDITIONAL USE allowing limited product�on and pro�ces�dn� as an accessory use at 2830 �'airvi�w Avenue, based on the cou�rr��n�s and findir��s containes�,'�nd su�ject to; stated conditions for approval a� d�i�ailed in th� staff reports dated March 2 and April 6, 201 S; amended as fol/ows: •` A solid opaque cedar fence approximately 6.5' ira heighf shall be insialled n�rthern ed�e pf the property and as clarified by the Board of Adjustments and Appea/s on January 25, 20i6; • Adl required screening shal/ be install�d no Iater than July 29, 2096. • Producfion areas doors shall b�e closed during limited production and processing operations. The makers of fhe motion confirmed their intent to exclude the former condition (lines 75- 77 of staff repo�t dated April 6, 2016) as follows: • Additiona! landscaping shal/ be installed rn and around the berm adjacent to the front employee and customer parking lot to more fuUy screen headlights from view of the adjacent residentially zoned properfies. INember Cunningham stated that, until someone proved there was an easement in place, she could not justify changing her decision. Member Cunningham noted that, locating the fence on the property line served to preserve the integrity of the neighborhood and would be similar to the former chain link fence, but provide a higher cedar fence at a height of 6.5'. Member Cunningham opined that this would benefit both the Vogels and residential neighbors and their perspectives.