2010-11-17_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, November 17, 2010 Page 10 in parks or institutional areas and whether they could meet the seventy-five foot 461 (75’) or more location from residential areas. 462 Mr. Paschke advised that the standards had been forwarded to the Parks and 463 Recreation Department but there had been no staff-level discussion to-date; and 464 noted that the standards had not been forwarded to the School Distance for 465 comment. 466 Discussion included rationale for the appropriate distance for separation and 467 screening fences for the portable restroom facilities; intended application upon 468 enactment of this ordinance on existing portable restrooms, with staff clarifying 469 that it was applicable to those being installed, and not those remaining in their 470 current locations, as pre-existing, non-conforming uses. 471 Further discussion included Employment and Industrial Uses (line 1199) related 472 to artisan workshops; sale of produced goods and percentage of 473 sales/production area versus retail uses; with the intent to not promote retail uses 474 within industrial areas; definition of wholesale use (line 1144); and 475 telecommunication ordinances (line 1149) not providing differential treatment of 476 city-owned property and private property for telecommunication purposes. 477 Mr. Paschke advised that, based on current scheduling, the current 478 telecommunication ordinance would stand at this time, similar to the shoreline 479 management and sign ordinances, and would be reviewed for revision at a time 480 in the near future. 481 At the request of Commissioners, Mr. Paschke advised that the solar energy 482 section was new, based on review and support by the City Council earlier this 483 year and their development of a policy to address a number of applications 484 coming forward with no code in place, but that the proposed code ratified that 485 policy into the that code. Mr. Paschke advised that, in essence, the section was 486 not new, but what staff had been approving by approved City Council policy over 487 the last few months. 488 Member Wozniak noted, in the Solar Section, a need to authorize the City 489 Planner or Design Review Committee (DRC) to review hardship cases or 490 instances where a home or size of room may preclude installation of a solar 491 energy system within the parameter of the roof or other established standards, 492 and allow for flexibility for staff to grant an administrative variance where 493 indicated. Member Wozniak advised that his rationale was that solar energy 494 systems, and their design, were new with many unknowns, and he didn’t want 495 the City to stand in the way of approving a system just due to it exceeding the 496 parameter of the roof line. 497 Vice Chair Boerigter spoke in opposition to that authority, opining that all 498 performance standards should be subject to administrative deviation, especially 499 noting the potential visibility for solar energy systems. 500 Mr. Paschke opined that this brought up a good point for an overview by staff for 501 those areas subject to administrative variances or deviations and those requiring 502 formal action; and to ensure consistency throughout the code. 503 Member Best concurred with Member Wozniak, that specific to solar panels and 504 to encourage environmental improvements, the City may want to be flexible with 505 whether they met strict requirements; while still recognizing the overall desire to 506 meet Comprehensive Plan guidelines for pedestrian friendly aesthetics. Member 507 Best opined that proposed standards could limit solar installation on smaller 508 homes. 509 Vice Chair Boerigter spoke in opposition to allowing for staff deviations and not 510 regulating how we wanted the City to look in the future, and to have standards in 511 place that were enforced. Vice Chair Boerigter opined that, if as new technology 512