PC 060811 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Olson commented that he thought he heard the applicant say that. Commissioner Blank stated that the applicant said he would open his business. Commissioner Olson noted that the applicant also said that. Commissioner Blank indicated that he did not hear the applicant say that. Commissioner Blank continued that his second concern, although it was not brought up as an issue, involved the wireless ordinance. He noted that sometimes, a wireless facility cannot be put on another building, or the wireless company says it does not want to put it there. He noted that by approving this application, the Commission might potentially impact an area in terms of the installation of a wireless facility that might not otherwise be impacted. Chair Narum asked staff for clarification about the wireless facility. Ms. Harryman stated that before she clarifies that issue, she would like to address the matter of private documents such as CC&Rs. She indicated that from the City's perspective, when an application is filed, by virtue of the Permit Streamlining Act, the City needs to process the application regardless of what the private documents might say. She explained that the reason the City's Code says that staff needs to apply the City's own zoning codes and not look at other private documents is because, as what happened this evening when one speaker stated that staff did not have the right CC&Rs but staff thinks it does, there may be updated CC&Rs, or staff may not have all the documents. She added that private documents are open to interpretation much of the time, or they may not be based on law, and now the Planning Commission is being asked to be judge and jury on, for example, whether or not an easement exists. She emphasized that this is an area the City does not to get into, and when the City starts denying applications and making considerations based on those private documents, and the City gets it wrong, the City gets into a potential lawsuit. Ms. Harryman stated that she recalls the box on the application form. She noted that the intent at that time may have been that the City wants and encourages the applicant to say "yes," but what it really does is have staff ask the applicant for that extra noticing, to make the effort to talk to the neighbors even if not the owners or business association, always to try and get that cooperation ahead of time. Commissioner Blank inquired whether there are cities that require homeowner association approval before it talks to the applicant. He stated that it seems like the owners association would have a difficult time and it would create a lot of problems if the City does not consider that. Ms. Harryman replied that there may be some cities that do that but that she will not say whether that is lawful or not until it gets challenged. She added that she is not aware of any court cases on this in particular. She indicated that her observation is really the intent of the ordinance, and the City's Code, as written, is good one. She noted that the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 8, 2011 Page 17 of 22