CC_Minutes_2016_0411 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

�02 .�3 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 -29 �30 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 �55 56 jj% Member Gitzen noted that the issue of an easement with CenturyLink was not an issue, since there is a definitive easement talked about within staff reports; and clarified that only the encroachment agreement was not applicable. Member Cunningham disagreed with the assessment of her colleague. Member Gitzen reiterated that this was going beyond what the city asked or required of other businesses within the community. While recognizing the difficulty in distancing this decision from the property's previous history, Member Gitzen noted that the use was for specific limited production/processing; and questioned what other businesses with similar uses would be asked; and noted his opposition to the motion. Member Daire reviewed his understanding of the motion, opining that it basically served to reinforce the (�J conditions a�vd findings of the January 25, 2016 meeting of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals (page 8 of the staff report). Me.mber Daire stated that his only question was whether or not this new motion satisfied the headlight screening requirements that might be invoked towar� the front of the property or if the property owner would be required to provide additional screening: Member Cunningham clarified that the screening (landscaping and berming) was already in place and no further screening woufd not be required. Member Daire also opined that the board fence itseif would provide additional screening. , Member Murphy reported that;: in his personal research, he was not under the impression that the actual action of the January 25, 2016 Board of Adjustments and Appeals was accurately portrayed, since they were asked to make a determination on the appeal of the Community Development Director's acSministrative tuiing at that time and had not definitively say anything about the location of the fence currently germane to this CU application. Member Murphy opined ihat the Board of Adjustments and Appeals had simpiy confirmed their support of staf�'s decision and rejected the appeal of that ruling. From `his personal perspective, Merr�I�er Murphy stated he believed the difficulty was in finding the true northern property line, since each survey to-date had differed somewhat. Therefore, f�lember iVlucphy'opined it would be difficult for the applicant to meet that condition. Nlember Murphy further opined that there was no doubt in his mind that there was an easement in place since ihere was cable underneath. Member Murphy opined that the fence served no further purpose in screening headlights if located on the property line, and suggested installing the fence up to the east edge of the building and going west to Fairview Avenue to serere the intent. In agreeing with Members Bull and Cunningham's position, Chair Boguszewski stated that his concern was that the CU followed the property; and should Vogels or a future owner remove fandscaping, nothing would have been accomplished. In recognizing the suggestion af Member Murphy, Chair Boguszewski noted that while there may be no advantage fo extending the fence to the front, there would also be no disadvantage. Chair Boguszewski offered his support for voting down this new motion and amending or resubmitting the original motion. Member Murphy opined that any conditions imposed became a burden at some point, but noted that since there was no light pollution from the north side of the building there was no need for fencing along that area. Member Cunningham questioned why the body didn't state a preference for a fence along the front parking lot up to Fairview Avenue (at the location of the blue line on the map).