2016-05-04_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, April 6, 2016 Page 7 Chair Boguszewski shared his thoughts via a hypothetical example related to various 298 opinions on fences alongproperty lines, variables for private property ownership rights, 299 preferences, and responsibilities; and how those variables may change from one property 300 owner to another, as well as from one use to another. 301 Chair Boguszewski then compared that example to the separate issue under 302 consideration by the commission for a Conditional Use (CU) for a light 303 processing/production use at 2830 Fairview Avenue, and whether or not that use in itself 304 brought any increased need for fencing to protect children and/or animals.If not, Chair 305 Boguszewski opined that, without any previous history with the IU and conditions applied 306 to that approval before the body, if this was simply a new CU application for a light 307 processing/production use, would the commission be having this extensive deliberation.If 308 the use brought additional danger to the neighborhood based on its activity, Chair 309 Boguszewski opined that then fencing may be required as a condition of approval and be 310 more pertinent than it is based on this proposed use and thereby factored in as to 311 impacts to the residential properties adjacent to the north. 312 Under that scenario, Member Daire opined that, with the exception of the door into the 313 office that protection for access was already in place.Chair Boguszewski and Member 314 Murphy concurred. 315 Chair Boguszewski reiterated that his question was whether or not the limited 316 processing/production evolved to the property owners to the north. 317 From his perspective, Member Bull opined that fencing was an appropriate discussion 318 and consideration with this use seeking conditional permitting.Member Bull noted 319 previous public comment related to the “drainage ditch” between the residential and 320 Vogel properties. If the fence was to be installed on the blue line and further from the 321 drainage ditch, Member Bull opined that it allowed visibility between the Vogel fence 322 installation and future residential property fence installations.However if the Vogel fence 323 is installed up to the property line, with residential properties installing a fence as well, it 324 created a narrow area creating a safety hazard for children and potential injury or 325 drowning since they could not be as easily observed if accessing that area.Member Bull 326 opined that if the drainage ditch was confined within the fence area or if it remained 327 completely in the open he could support it, but if location of the fence installation created 328 a small confined area between fences, he believed it created a safety issue. 329 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Member Bull confirmed that his preference would 330 be for either Option B (yellow line) or Option C (blue line) versus Option A (pink line). 331 At the request of Chair Boguszewski following his personal walk of the property earlier 332 today, Member Murphy clarified that he would not consider the area referenced by 333 Member Bull as a “drainage ditch” but actually a very shallow depression caused by 334 erosion with water draining away from the Vogel building.Even though photos were 335 presented during last month’s public comment, given the elevation he observed, 336 Member Murphy opined that standing water would occur only when the ground was 337 frozen during the spring, or after a significant rainfall. 338 While she would not characterize the area as a “drainage ditch, Member Cunningham 339 opined that photos provided evidence of significant standing water, and she shared 340 Member Bull’s concerns. 341 Member Gitzen stated his concurrence with Chair Boguszewski’s hypothesis related to 342 removal or retention of fences.Member Gitzen opined that this fence installation needed 343 to be tied directly back to this CU application and city code requirements for it and any 344 other businesses requesting a CU and the standards that apply. 345 Chair Boguszewski reiterated that if this CU application stands alone without any of the 346 past IU history, it should be considered as such, and consideration of staff’s 347 recommendation for Condition Option C and additional landscaping. 348