2016-12-07_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Draft Minutes – Wednesday, November 2, 2016 Page 12 Campbell clarified that they had only lived at this address for a year, and it was 559 not during the former book store use. 560 Wayne Griesel, 1067 Harriet Lane 561 Mr. Griesel advised that his initial questions regarding parking had been 562 sufficiently addressed during tonight’s discussion. However, he noted another 563 use in the area (a hardware store) typically filled their lot on occasion and parking 564 ended up moving down Roselawn Avenue. 565 Using the displayed picture, Mr. Griesel agreed with the concerns expressed by 566 Ms. Campbell, noting the lights would be shining right in her windows from this 567 site. 568 Discussion ensued regarding the location of the residence and this multi-tenant 569 building; confirming that the windows at the back of the building (housing 570 Cyrogenics Lab) now in use and creating no negative impacts); and how future 571 uses in that tenant area could impact adjacent residential properties on that side 572 of the building. 573 Ms. Campbell clarified that at one time significant vegetation had helped screen 574 the properties until it was removed last spring; and opined there may still be a 575 partial fence at the back of this multi-tenant site, but noted with removal of the 576 vegetation and trees, her property had gained considerable exposure to this 577 building. 578 At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Moslemi clarified that the Yoga use would be 579 toward the front of the building and not in the rear adjacent to Ms. Campbell’s 580 property. 581 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Paschke advised that staff was not 582 aware of how open the properties were to each other; but agreed removal of the 583 trees and screening between the site and adjacent residence may have created a 584 potential issue with headlights. However, Mr. Paschke also noted it was not 585 uncommon for property owners to remove vegetation if growing into an existing 586 fence screen; and clarified that none of those trees or plants (mostly Lilac bushes 587 from his observation) was part of the project when the Cyrogenics Lab was 588 approved; and therefore it would have been considered a pre-existing situation. 589 Mr. Paschke suggested it could have simply been undergrowth that had grown 590 into the fence and removed accordingly. However, while that remained an 591 unknown, Mr. Paschke reiterated that it was not unusual for a property owner to 592 remove that growth as part of periodic maintenance and landscape care and 593 would not require permits. 594 Based on his observations, Mr. Griesel opined that the primary reason the trees 595 were removed was that the limbs and branches were hanging over the roof of the 596 building causing a potential for damage. However, Mr. Griesel agreed that their 597 removal had created this other screening problem by clearing that space. 598 When applying conditions for this request, Member Murphy asked if there was any 599 need for an additional condition related to screening on the east side of the site. 600 Mr. Paschke advised that staff didn’t feel a condition was needed; but agreed to 601 examine the site and situation prior to this moving forward to the City Council. As 602 per current city code provisions, Mr. Paschke noted that if a screened fence had 603 been initially required for installation as part of one or two projects to screen 604 adjacent residential properties that would be one thing; and if the undergrowth 605 was problematic and removed to avoid roof damage to an existing building, he 606 advised that once removed they would not necessarily need to be replaced. 607