11-08-23 PC Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – October 4, 2023 6 Commissioner Weber questioned if the proposed Ordinance spoke to screening requirements. Senior Planner Fransen indicated the drafted Ordinance did not require screening. She reported staff took this approach because other accessory structures do not require screening. She indicated the Planning Commission could make recommendations regarding screening, if this was a concern. Commissioner Wicklund inquired when the applicant paid the permit fee for a building permit. Senior Planner Fransen stated the applicant would pay the fee when the application review is completed and the permit was ready to be issued. Commissioner Wicklund asked if this item were tabled could the language within the Ordinance change, noting he would like to see the TRC NR-1 and NR-2 zoning districts be included in the proposed Ordinance. Community Development Director Jagoe reported if the Commission were to table this item staff could be directed to make amendments to the language and a second notice could be sent out for this zoning code amendment. Commissioner Collins stated he fully supported the proposed Ordinance. He noted this was the way of the future and he was pleased the City was considering this zoning code amendment. He was of the opinion that screening would be counterproductive. He supported the City offering an alternative for how residents receive their power. Commissioner Weber commented he strongly supported the proposed zoning code amendment. Commissioner Blilie inquired why someone would have a ground mounted system versus mounting it on the roof. Chair Vijums indicated this may be a personal choice or may have to do with the structural integrity of the roof. Commissioner Bjorklund stated this may also depend on the slope and direction that a roof is facing. Senior Planner Fransen added that the structure could also have tree coverage that provide cooling benefits during the summer and that trees could need to be removed to provide adequate sunlight for a roof-mounted solar array to be effective. She offered that this could be contradictory to the intent of a solar energy system. Chair Vijums indicated he supported solar arrays, but stated they were not aesthetically pleasing, especially if they were in backyards. He believed the Commission was not ready to vote on this zoning code amendment because it needed more language regarding aesthetics and screening. Commissioner Collins explained solar panels had a utilitarian look because they provided utility. He supported the City moving towards progress versus worrying about aesthetics. He indicated the City could address materiality.