2016-04-06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, April 6, 2016 Page 5 Discussion ensued briefly regarding the process in pursuing the previous motion, 194 amending it further or the maker and seconder of the motion withdrawing it and new 195 motions and/or amendments considered by the body. 196 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Ms. Collins clarified staff’s perspective based on 197 the discovery between Commission meetings; and specifically staff’s review for 198 positioning the fence installation along the northern lot line. Ms. Collins advised that 199 staff’s due diligence included an extensive review of documents on file and past records. 200 After staff’s analysis, Ms. Collins stated that staff was not in a position to comfortably 201 recommend that a fence be installed along the northern lot line due to the issues 202 addressed by Senior Planner Lloyd. Ms. Collins advised that staff’s recommendation 203 would be to address the original intent and concern with original conditions for approval 204 were for the purpose of screening parking areas, as it would do so for any limited 205 production/processing use, with those options provided in the March 2, 2016 staff report. 206 However, Ms. Collins stated that staff was uncomfortable with Option B for fence 207 installation on the lot line, following their further due diligence, based on some challenges 208 with the potential easement for the underground cable line and overhead power lines. 209 Therefore, given that situation, Ms. Collins advised that staff could not recommend that 210 property line as the ideal location to install the fence. Ms. Collins further referenced city 211 code that didn’t always specify the exact fence location or setback due to site-specific 212 challenges, allowing for discretion and some maneuverability for the applicant. Ms. 213 Collins noted that staff’s basic concern had been and continued to be the fence’s 214 screening of the Vogel Mechanical parking lot for the benefit of adjacent residential 215 properties. 216 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Ms. Collins confirmed that staff supported and 217 recommended Option C rather than Option B as detailed in the March 2, 2016 staff report 218 and described as follows: 219 Option 1.C Standard Buffer Screening 220 a. A solid opaque cedar fence approximately 6.5’ in height shall be installed north of the 221 existing eastern parking lot to screen the lot, including delivery and dock doors and the 222 refuse/recycling areas. 223 b. Additional landscaping shall be installed in and around the berm adjacent to the front 224 employee and customer parking lot to more fully screen headlights from view of the 225 adjacent residentially zoned properties. 226 Member Cunningham referenced the comments of Interim Community Development 227 Director Collins when stated staff’s stance, and stating that staff could not affirm the 228 fence along the property line due to concerns with a “potential” easement. Member 229 Cunningham sought clarification, stating that she had never heard it referred to as a 230 “potential easement, but had understood an easement was in place. 231 Ms. Collins advised that staff and the commission had been recipients of a “draft 232 encroachment agreement,” apparently provided by CenturyLink to Vogel Mechanical, 233 creating the supposition that there was an easement in place. However, with staff still 234 unable to uncover that document nor could anyone provide such an easement agreement 235 to staff, Ms. Collins advised that the easement agreement remained hypothetical, causing 236 staff to hesitate in making a decision based on supposition. Therefore, Ms. Collins noted 237 that the city was unable to affirm whether or not a fence can or cannot be installed on the 238 property line on that easement without first having staff and the city’s legal counsel 239 review the document. 240 As with other permitted uses, Ms. Collins noted that the city could therefore only state 241 some variability based on the certain risk a property owner assumes in placing a fence. If 242 there are no easement issues and no potential issues with CenturyLink’s underground 243 cable, Ms. Collins opined that it seemed the fence option now supported by staff (Option 244 1.C) would provide those variables. Ms. Collins reiterated that the intent was to satisfy 245 screening for adjacent residential properties by screening overhead and vehicle lights for 246