Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 <br />January 23, 2024 <br />----------------------------- <br />Mr. Leeseberg stated staff would visit the site to verify in person to determine if the screening meets the <br />requirements. <br /> <br /> Chair Larson-Vito opened the public hearing. <br /> <br />Josh Clark – 21144 Twin Lakes Rd. NW- the applicant, explained how he would prefer to do a natural <br />landscape berm next to the existing black fence. He stated where the concrete landscape curbing or boulders <br />were suggested, there already a landscape berm and mature trees in place and stated it was virtually <br />impossible for the area to creep. He’s willing to add boulders but with what is there now, it’s not going to <br />make a difference. He stated he does not want to add a fence and gate because with the driveway angle, the <br />woods offer screening, but if the port-a-potty and gas tanks are a concern, he would relocate them. <br />Mr. Clark read aloud a letter in support of his request from Jim Kresowak, 21167 Twin Lakes Rd. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark made it clear that he wasn’t turning the large field into a large parking lot for equipment. He <br />explained his request was a small area for concrete bins to store landscaping mulch, rock, and gravel from <br />leftover jobs to allow reuse on future projects. He stated he felt the area is 100% out of sight, doesn’t make <br />noise, and noted he wanted to preserve the rural feeling. He commented on the surrounding parcels with <br />farming equipment and businesses operating and is a small business owner only continuing to improve his <br />property and follow the rules. <br /> <br />th <br />Susan Jeddloah, 9830 213 Ave. NW, asked questions about the storage of landscaping items and how it’s <br />unloaded. Mr. Clark answered her questions. She stated her main concern wasn’t that he was trying to <br />operate a business but rather losing the peace on her property that she worked hard to acquire. She stated <br />she can’t sit on her porch in the evening without hearing equipment sounds from the applicant’s property <br />and this was disheartening to her and her husband. <br /> <br />There being no one else to speak, Chair Larson-Vito closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />Commissioner Ryberg wondered how a property can hold a business without impacting the neighborhood, <br />and noted he has 16 acres in which the applicant is only using half for his home and outdoor storage. He <br />complimented the applicant on improving the property and mitigating the neighbor’s concerns. He was in <br />favor of approving this request. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson agreed with Commissioner Rydberg and felt along with the conditions outlined in <br />the IUP, the applicant did a good job explaining how to mitigate noise and sight. He felt by moving the <br />porta-potty and bins that are visible from the road, there would be no need for a gate and fence in the front. <br /> <br />Mr. Leeseberg stated the outdoor storage section of the city ordinance reads the outdoor storage area <br />defined as such: shall be completely screened from view within all public rights-of-way in residentially zoned <br />parcels. He indicated it isn’t the porta-potty that requires screening, but rather the potential for a dump <br />truck, skid loader, or trailer. If you approve an area, the area is subject to anything being stored there. <br /> <br />Commissioner Rydberg asked about the opaqueness of fencing. <br /> <br />Mr. Leeseberg stated it does not have to be 100% opaque. <br /> <br />Commissioner Beise asked if evergreens would be sufficient down the edge of the right of way. <br /> <br /> <br />