2016-12-07_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Draft Minutes – Wednesday, November 2, 2016 Page 13 Chair Boguszewski suggested a third condition, such as “screening – either trees 608 or fencing – shall be provided to prevent headlight intrusion into adjacent 609 residential properties.” 610 Mr. Paschke advised that would be dependent on if there was actually room to do 611 so and that it would create no issue with existing vegetation, and simply an 612 expansion to the north of the existing screened fence at a height of 6’ to 6.5’. Mr. 613 Paschke opined his recollection was that the fence was board wood screen fence; 614 but was unsure of the actual size as staff didn’t investigate it as they didn’t feel it 615 was necessary given the pre-existing nature of this site and types of permitted 616 uses, with no issues raised in the past related to that screening. 617 Chair Boguszewski noted the factor that had apparently changes in the interim 618 was the removal of vegetation between the previous and current uses. 619 Member Murphy asked if Ms. Campbell was experiencing any issues now with 620 current uses and before the end of Daylight Saving Time, or if the existing fence 621 provided sufficient screening. 622 Ms. Campbell opined the wooden fence running from the edge of the building 623 across to the side of the parking lot, and existing vegetation and landscaping on 624 the west side of the fence facing the building was sufficient. However, Ms. 625 Campbell opined that some of the remaining vegetation on the back side was 626 scrubby and included a lot of Buckthorn and Maple and other undergrowth. Ms. 627 Campbell further opined that she didn’t think the fence was probably going to be a 628 problem; but her main concern was the back of the building being exposed and 629 windows at the back of the building, with that area needing to be addressed and 630 sufficient to alleviating her concerns. 631 Member Kimble stated that it sounded like the screening or fence was already in 632 place to screen the parking lot. Member Kimble asked if this applicant is the 633 landlord/owner or if these were individual condo units. 634 Mr. Paschke clarified that the main applicant is the owner of the property; and that 635 Mr. Moslemi was the owner of the proposed Yoga studio business use to occupy 636 the front of the building. 637 Therefore, Member Kimble opined that these questions and back windows were 638 not actually relevant to this application, but for the building or property owner. 639 Mr. Paschke concurred; advising that based on this coming up tonight, staff would 640 follow-up with the building owner and let them know of resident concerns with city 641 staff then working with them to address screening issues. However, as stated, 642 the concern is not germane to this request currently before the Commission. 643 Chair Boguszewski suggested that staff make it clear to the property owner that it 644 would be helpful if they were agreeable to provide screening for current and any 645 future uses at the back of the building to eliminate potential objections from 646 adjacent residential property owners. 647 Member Bull stated he liked the idea of the fence already there; and suggested 648 adding another condition to this use such as, “…any existing screening found in 649 disrepair or removed and no longer providing screening shall be addressed at no 650 added burden on the property owner other than general and ongoing 651 maintenance.” 652 Mr. Paschke reiterated that the fence and screening were considered existing 653 conditions and while possibly required of previous projects, pending review of past 654 planning files by staff, but not a requirement of this requested use. Mr. Paschke 655 advised that city code required a buffer/screen (fencing or landscaping) between 656 commercial and residential properties; and if staff’s investigation found that it the 657 screening had been removed and not simply consisting of trimming volunteer 658