CC_Minutes_2016_0411 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

�58 �9 �60 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 -g5 �6 �87 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 END: 8:06 pm Member Bull clarified that existing berming and landscaping had already been done; and opined that staff's recommendation for increasing that landscaping was no longer relevant as what was already in place was sufficient. Chair Boguszewski further clarified that no fence was needed in the front, only beefing up landscaping. Chair Boguszewski further clarified that fihe history of the fence location on the property line (yellow line on the map) was essentially the IU condition and the default was to remain consistent with that initial condition. However, Chair Boguszewski noted that, due to the easement issue, if the applicant wasn't able to install the fence on that property line, staff came up with the option for locating it further south of the property line to allow some flexibility. However, Chair Boguszewski further noted that, if the fence came too close to the property line it allowed for a narra+N channel between fences that created additional concerns for some. Therefore; Chair Boguszewski noted the third option considered more conservative from the applicant's perspective and as noted by Member Murphy, would not serve to overburden the properfy owner and serve as a minimalist approach with the purpose amended to eliminate that "no man's land" represented by the limited fence installation (blue line on the map). Specific to the future of this property, Member Murphy noted that it' was zoned Commercial Mixed Use-1 (CMU-1) and supportsd a large number of permitted uses within that district that could be much more oEanoxious than this particular use. Member Murphy opined that he did:n't think there was any guarantee of future safety in applying this condition as part of the CU approval unless such a condition was made applicable for the entire CMU-1 area and its permitted uses. Member Bull opined that the CU designation rr�akes this a more industrial use; and while recognizing thaE at �vas limited as an accessory us,: it was an industrial use separated from adjacent r�sidentiai pr�perties. In agreement with Member Cunningham, Member Bull agreed khat residents d�served so�e level of separation for their private residences from adjacent businesses. M�mber Bull �Eso recognized that something else could move into the facil�ty that may s�itistantiate ad�itsonal or validate these concerns, but any use adjacent tr� residential prope�ty should fal� under the same review process. Member Murphy noted numerous uses that would require no action or approval by the Planning Commissian and/or City Council. nnorwoN (rv�w,� Ayes: 4(Cunniragham, Daire, Bull, Boguszewski) Nays: 2 (Gitzen, Murphy) Abstentions: 1 (Kimble) Mot6on carried. Chair Boguszewski noted this proposal was scheduled to go before the City Council at their Apri{ 1'i, 2016 meeting.