PC 060811 - Laserfiche WebLink

City would like to see agreement, but if there is none, the City needs to apply its zoning ordinance, and private parties will have to settle their differences and work things out however they choose. Chair Narum requested clarification regarding if approving this application would preclude installing a wireless facility. Ms. Harryman stated that she cannot comment on Jack Balch's particular email regarding this matter. She explained that the wireless ordinance actually uses 300-foot radius maps, and the Code actually works in the reverse: one would need to know where the wireless facility is locating and ensuring it is 300 feet away from the property line of a child care center. She stated that she was not certain, but it appears based on the maps that Jack Balch may already have a conflict, and under the City's current ordinance, he cannot have a wireless facility there. Ms. Harryman pointed out that the ordinance includes language that the Council should update the ordinance every five years; the ordinance was adopted in 1998 and it has not been reviewed since. She noted that this area is constantly evolving, technology is evolving , case law changes regularly, and other areas surrounding wireless is constantly changing. She indicated that staff has begun to work with Planning staff to look at the wireless ordinance and will be making some recommendations, including ones which may affect this 300-foot radius provision. commented that as the ordinance exists today, when the Commission approves a school or child care facility, whether as a conditional approval or straight zoning, it could have some effect on whether someone could put a wireless facility. Ms. Harryman said yes. She added that conversely, if an applicant is trying to put a wireless facility on a building, a childcare facility, public or private school, or park cannot be located within a minimum of 300 feet from the property line. Commissioner Blank commented that many years ago an applicant was trying to open a child care center and claimed to be licensed by the State but could never produce the license. In this regard, he suggested that, with respect to Condition No. 6, the City be in receipt of the approval as opposed to having a letter from the applicant indicating approval. Ms. Harryman stated that this topic was discussed with the Planning Commission and the City Council with respect to what to do with these types of uses and how far the City could go about putting its own requirements. She noted that the City is starting to get into the area of what the State regulates as well as pre-emption issues, and staff felt comfortable in asking for the self-certification. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 8, 2011 Page 18 of 22