2016-04-06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, April 6, 2016 Page 6 this limited processing/production use. However, Ms. Collins further opined that whether 247 or not the fence installation was required on the lot line or 10’ off was irrelevant as long 248 as it served the purpose of screening the parking area. 249 From her personal perspective, Member Cunningham noted that when considering the 250 original Vogel IU application, she had originally supported installation of the fence along 251 the property line, not just to screen headlights, but also to address her concerns related 252 to potential double fence barriers and protecting the comfort level for the adjacent 253 residential neighborhood. Member Cunningham recognized that headlights may be an 254 issue, but wanted the record to show that this was not her only concern with or the intent 255 in her support for fence installation on the property line. 256 Member Daire stated his recollection was that the original chain link fence on the property 257 line had since been removed, and had belonged to the former property owner Aramark, 258 and inherited by the Vogels upon their purchase of the property. 259 Ms. Collins advised that she was not aware of that information. 260 Member Cunningham stated that the commission had been told that in past meetings. 261 With removal of that fence, Member Daire advised that it left residential backyards open 262 to what the commission had perceived as an easement area for underground utilities and 263 overhead power lines. 264 Member Murphy advised that he had sought permission from the Vogels today and had 265 walked the property, noting that a chain link fence is there along the north edge of the 266 parking lot, but not on the property line. 267 For verification purposes, Chair Boguszewski reviewed each of the three options detailed 268 on the aerial map being displayed and potential fence locations. 269 Discussion ensued related to interpretation of the options outlined in the staff report, 270 specifically the length of the fence east/west and staff’s revised recommendation (lines 271 67 – 77) of the April 6, 2016 staff report; and the length of the fence in relationship to the 272 building and screening of the parking area(s) with additional landscaping and berming. 273 Member Daire referenced public comment from the March Commission meeting, with 274 parents expressing safety concern if there was an area between the Vogel fence and 275 those installed by residential property owners. Member Daire asked if approval was given 276 for installation of the fence (blue line on map) screening the parking area but not on the 277 north property line (yellow line on map), would residential property owners be responsible 278 for installing their own fences on their property lines. If that was the case, Member Daire 279 asked if responsibility then evolved to residential property owners for protecting animals 280 and/or children in the area between the ultimate location for the Vogel fence installation 281 and the property lines of adjacent residential property owners who may choose to install 282 a fence on their property lines. 283 Ms. Collins responded that, if those residents felt the need to provide additional 284 screenings, they could make that choice and follow city code requirements seeking a 285 permit for such a fence installation. Ms. Collins suggested this may be one of the 286 variables the commission chose to consider when determining a selected option this 287 evening. When the city considers public health, safety and welfare in the community, Ms. 288 Collins noted that it was a subjective look. Therefore, Ms. Collins suggested that the 289 commission may wish to address the concerns expressed by some neighbors as part of 290 their decision and the subjectivity of space between fencing. As to what is considered 291 safe or not safe by the city, Ms. Collins referenced the comments of the City’s Community 292 Safety Coordinator Corey Yunke who expressed no concern with an area between 293 fencing. However, Ms. Collins noted that Mr. Yunke was also looking at that safety from a 294 criminal sense, and had noted that if the fence location was in a more commercial area 295 with a heightened level of use, it may become a nuisance concern, but from a safety 296 component, he voiced no concerns. 297