2016-04-06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, April 6, 2016 Page 11 that of the adjacent residential neighborhood, especially with the CU staying with the 500 property. Therefore, Chair Boguszewski opined that fence installation along the north 501 property boundary (yellow line on map) was more conservative than Option C (blue line) 502 or a variant 10’ from the parking lot. 503 NEW MOTION 504 Member Cunningham moved, seconded by Member Bull to recommend to the City 505 Council approval of a CONDITIONAL USE allowing limited production and 506 processing as an accessory use at 2830 Fairview Avenue, based on the comments 507 and findings contained, and subject to stated conditions for approval as detailed in 508 the staff reports dated March 2 and April 6, 2016; amended as follows: 509  A solid opaque cedar fence approximately 6.5’ in height shall be installed 510 northern edge of the property and as clarified by the Board of Adjustments and 511 Appeals on January 25, 2016; 512  All required screening shall be installed no later than July 29, 2016. 513  Production areas doors shall be closed during limited production and 514 processing operations. 515 The makers of the motion confirmed their intent to exclude the former condition (lines 75- 516 77 of staff report dated April 6, 2016) as follows: 517  Additional landscaping shall be installed in and around the berm adjacent to the front 518 employee and customer parking lot to more fully screen headlights from view of the 519 adjacent residentially zoned properties. 520 Member Cunningham stated that, until someone proved there was an easement in place, 521 she could not justify changing her decision. Member Cunningham noted that, locating the 522 fence on the property line served to preserve the integrity of the neighborhood and would 523 be similar to the former chain link fence, but provide a higher cedar fence at a height of 524 6.5’. Member Cunningham opined that this would benefit both the Vogels and residential 525 neighbors and their perspectives. 526 Member Gitzen noted that the issue of an easement with CenturyLink was not an issue, 527 since there is a definitive easement talked about within staff reports; and clarified that 528 only the encroachment agreement was not applicable. 529 Member Cunningham disagreed with the assessment of her colleague. 530 Member Gitzen reiterated that this was going beyond what the city asked or required of 531 other businesses within the community. While recognizing the difficulty in distancing this 532 decision from the property’s previous history, Member Gitzen noted that the use was for 533 specific limited production/processing; and questioned what other businesses with similar 534 uses would be asked; and noted his opposition to the motion. 535 Member Daire reviewed his understanding of the motion, opining that it basically served 536 to reinforce the IU conditions and findings of the January 25, 2016 meeting of the Board 537 of Adjustments and Appeals (page 8 of the staff report). Member Daire stated that his 538 only question was whether or not this new motion satisfied the headlight screening 539 requirements that might be invoked toward the front of the property or if the property 540 owner would be required to provide additional screening. 541 Member Cunningham clarified that the screening (landscaping and berming) was already 542 in place and further screening would not be required. 543 Member Daire also opined that the board fence itself would provide additional screening. 544 Member Murphy reported that, in his personal research, he was not under the impression 545 that the actual action of the January 25, 2016 Board of Adjustments and Appeals was 546 accurately portrayed, since they were asked to make a determination on the appeal of 547 the Community Development Director’s administrative ruling at that time and had not 548