2016-05-04_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, April 6, 2016 Page 8 However, Chair Boguszewski noted that the commission had been in the midst of voting 349 on Option B at its March meeting. 350 With respect to past deliberations, Member Bull stated his agreement for fencing around 351 the parking area within 10’ or some type of measurement allowing some flexibility but 352 also some rigidity as well. At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Member Bull clarified 353 that he could support staff’s recommendation if the fence (blue line) was within 10’ of the 354 parking area, but no further away to still address angled beams from vehicles in the 355 parking area. 356 Member Daire suggested installing the cedar fence consistent with and up to the 357 building face on the north side, leaving approximately 32’ between the north property 358 line and chain link fence, and thereby using the building as part of the screening. 359 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Ms. Collins and Mr. Lloyd noted that some 360 berming and landscaping was already in place between the Vogel north property line 361 and the parking lot, recently installed by the Vogels.Ms. Collins also pointed out the 362 location of the existing chain link fencing and the building itself. 363 Discussion ensuedabout fence location options in relationship to the building and 364 various property lines. 365 Member Cunningham stated her preference for the motion as restated from the March 366 meeting, even more so after tonight’s discussion than before.While recognizing thatthe 367 original condition was part of the IU approval and a separate issue from this CU 368 application, Member Cunningham stated her original reasoning for wanting the fence in 369 the same location as the previous chain link fence remained the same, and further noted 370 that factors nor the neighborhood had changed.Member Cunningham expressed her 371 strong belief that the fence needed to be installed on the property line; and while she 372 had been searching for a more tangible reason or proof for the fence to not be located 373 on the north property line, she was unable to do so.Member Cunningham stated that 374 she found everything else brought before the commission to be very speculative in 375 nature, and was unable to make her decision based on speculation.Whether or not the 376 easement actually exists, Member Cunningham stated that she firmly believed it was in 377 the best interest of the neighbors and the Vogels to install the fence along the property 378 line (yellow line). 379 Chair Boguszewski noted that, as stated before, this request is a CU application, not an 380 IU application and will attach to the property and will remain with the property in 381 perpetuity pending City Council ultimately decides and whether or not they follow the 382 Planning Commission’s recommendation. 383 Ms. Collins reiterated that, with the mature landscaping already in place between the 384 driveway and blue line shown on the map, the fence installation would need to take that 385 into consideration even though more extensive landscaping would still be required. 386 For the benefit of Member Cunningham, Member Murphy noted that it was obvious in 387 viewing the area that a fence had previously been in place and was now clearly missing. 388 However, as a matter of principle, Member Murphy asked Member Cunningham if the 389 city should adhere to a consistent set of standards unless there was an overriding 390 concern.Member Murphy opined that, in this case and with this particular property he 391 was unable to see that concern.Based on his calculations, Member Murphy noted there 392 was approximately 30’ between the blue line on the map and northern property line, 393 causing him to question any safety concerns for children accessing that area, especially 394 with the essentially flat terrain of the property.Member Murphy spoke of a “one-size-fits- 395 all” requirement in citycode for property owners and fence installations, including the 396 Vogels; opining that staff’s recommendation serves that consistency and was 397 appropriate for the intent of the fence to cover the parking lot and dock areas, and 398 allowing for some flexibility north of the existing parking lot and serves the neighborhood 399 and business well.Member Murphy noted the existence of some immature landscaping 400 to the west that could be strengthened that could be covered by motion. 401