PC 111313 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner O'Connor asked Ms. Harryman if the proposed language still has a 300 -foot zone for agricultural areas as well as parks and open space areas. Ms. Harryman replied that in commercial, office, and industrial (C /0/1) areas, if the facility is concealed, there is no separation; and if it is camouflaged as proposed, there is a 300 -foot buffer from all those uses. Commissioner O'Connor inquired if that includes agricultural areas Ms. Harryman explained that if a carrier locates in a C, O, or I area and is concealed, it can go anywhere on that C, O, or I area. She gave an example that if a commercially -zoned property was immediately adjacent to a park, the carrier could go within one foot of the park if the facility is concealed; however, if it is camouflaged, such as a faux tree on a commercial lot, the carrier will have to be 300 feet away from existing dwelling units, senior care, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities, public or private schools for children, and neighborhood parks. Commissioner O'Connor inquired why the City would allow it if it is completely concealed but would not allow it if it were camouflaged, such as a flagpole that is really an antenna but looks like a flagpole. Ms. Harryman replied that there is no aesthetic issue involved when the facility is concealed; but with camouflage, some are better than others. Commissioner O'Connor noted that the Commission has the ability to regulate what it looks like to a certain extent. Ms. Harryman confirmed that was correct. She presented as an example, the home, which is the owners' sanctuary, with the owners sitting in their backyard enjoying a glass of wine and looking out at whatever view they have, and they happen to be adjacent to a C, O, or I, maybe an Ag (Agriculture), P &I (Public & Institutional), or an MU (Mixed Use) which has a faux tree. She noted that staff will require that it be made as nice as possible, as camouflaged as possible, but the idea is that there is still an aesthetic element there and so there is a distance to be maintained. Commissioner O'Connor commented that it just seems like the Commission has the ability to open up the coverage gaps much better if the camouflage were treated the same way as the concealed, with the understanding that State and Federal laws will be followed as well. He added that it just seems like it would help the Commission to open that up. Ms. Harryman replied that the Planning Commission can certainly consider that. She stated that the proposed Ordinance is trying to find a balance between the segment of the population that is used to having these large restrictions and is comfortable with not having these commercial uses in certain zones, in parks, and in residential neighborhoods. She added that there is certainly more direction that the Planning Commission, and ultimately the City Council, could go into if they were so inclined. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 13, 2013 Page 47 of 50