2016-04-06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, April 6, 2016 Page 12 definitively say anything about the location of the fence currently germane to this CU 549 application. Member Murphy opined that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals had 550 simply confirmed their support of staff’s decision and rejected the appeal of that ruling. 551 From his personal perspective, Member Murphy stated he believed the difficulty was in 552 finding the true northern property line, since each survey to-date had differed somewhat. 553 Therefore, Member Murphy opined it would be difficult for the applicant to meet that 554 condition. Member Murphy further opined that there was no doubt in his mind that there 555 was an easement in place since there was cable underneath. Member Murphy opined 556 that the fence served no further purpose in screening headlights if located on the property 557 line, and suggested installing the fence up to the east edge of the building and going west 558 to Fairview Avenue to serve the intent. 559 In agreeing with Members Bull and Cunningham’s position, Chair Boguszewski stated 560 that his concern was that the CU followed the property; and should Vogels or a future 561 owner remove landscaping, nothing would have been accomplished. In recognizing the 562 suggestion of Member Murphy, Chair Boguszewski noted that while there may be no 563 advantage to extending the fence to the front, there would also be no disadvantage. 564 Chair Boguszewski offered his support for voting down this new motion and amending or 565 resubmitting the original motion. 566 Member Murphy opined that any conditions imposed became a burden at some point, but 567 noted that since there was no light pollution from the north side of the building there was 568 no need for fencing along that area. 569 Member Cunningham questioned why the body didn’t state a preference for a fence 570 along the front parking lot up to Fairview Avenue (at the location of the blue line on the 571 map). 572 Member Bull clarified that existing berming and landscaping had already been done; and 573 opined that staff’s recommendation for increasing that landscaping was no longer 574 relevant as what was already in place was sufficient. 575 Chair Boguszewski further clarified that no fence was needed in the front, only beefing up 576 landscaping. 577 Chair Boguszewski further clarified that the history of the fence location on the property 578 line (yellow line on the map) was essentially the IU condition and the default was to 579 remain consistent with that initial condition. However, Chair Boguszewski noted that, due 580 to the easement issue, if the applicant wasn’t able to install the fence on that property 581 line, staff came up with the option for locating it further south of the property line to allow 582 some flexibility. However, Chair Boguszewski further noted that, if the fence came too 583 close to the property line it allowed for a narrow channel between fences that created 584 additional concerns for some. Therefore, Chair Boguszewski noted the third option 585 considered more conservative from the applicant’s perspective and as noted by Member 586 Murphy, would not serve to overburden the property owner and serve as a minimalist 587 approach with the purpose amended to eliminate that “no man’s land” represented by the 588 limited fence installation (blue line on the map). 589 Specific to the future of this property, Member Murphy noted that it was zoned 590 Commercial Mixed Use-1 (CMU-1) and supported a large number of permitted uses 591 within that district that could be much more obnoxious than this particular use. Member 592 Murphy opined that he didn’t think there was any guarantee of future safety in applying 593 this condition as part of the CU approval unless such a condition was made applicable for 594 the entire CMU-1 area and its permitted uses. 595 Member Bull opined that the CU designation makes this a more industrial use; and while 596 recognizing that it was limited as an accessory use, it was an industrial use separated 597 from adjacent residential properties. In agreement with Member Cunningham, Member 598 Bull agreed that residents deserved some level of separation for their private residences 599 from adjacent businesses. Member Bull also recognized that something else could move 600