PC 120810 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner O’Connor stated that another alternative would be to look at a different roofing material like Alternative 3, asphalt shingles, which could be put on an over slope. Commissioner Pentin suggested a motion for alternative Alternative 1. Commissioner O’Connor suggested considering a partial standing seam metal roof and doing panel A only because it is mostly covered with PV panels, whereas panel B has such a small piece covered by a water solar panel with so much of the roof exposed. Commissioner Blank supported Commissioner O’Connor’s suggestion. Commissioner Pentin noted there would still be a warranty problem and, knowing that panel B cannot be seen, maintained his support for panels A and B and suggested having the applicant address panel C for whatever modification to meet his warranty or Code, or both. He added that while he does not want to change what was agreed to, he understands what Mr. Harvey is trying to accomplish. Commissioner Pentin moved to approve Case PDR-932, Alternative 1 of the staff report, with a modification that the standing seam metal roof be limited to panels A and B and that the applicant be required to work on panel C to comply with the Code. Commissioner Narum seconded the motion. Commissioner Blank stated that he would not support the motion because he feels it undermines the Zoning Administrator process and sets a precedent that if negotiations do not work out with the Planning Division, applicants can come to the Planning Commission and undo what was agreed upon. He added that he also thinks there should be some agreement with both parties as a significant portion of the neighborhood and PHA’s desires as to what it perceives to be important are not being taken into account. Commissioner Pentin disagreed and stated that the Zoning Administrator’s report included negotiations for a full metal seam roof; this modification was not part of that conversation or compromise. He noted that the compromise was to go to a full roof of metal shingles, and, therefore, he did not think a precedent was being set. He stated that he thinks there is a true reason for change, it is valid, and the full roof itself with that slope would actually be out of Code. Commissioner Blank noted that the warranty is not the issue, but rather an agreement made fostered by the Planning Division. He added that undoing the agreement is transmitting a message similar to de novo appeals to the Council. Chair Olson concurred and stated that this is a fact. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, December 8, 2010 Page 18 of 23