PL MINUTES 09182001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 18, 2001 Page 4 1 Commissioner Thomas referred to Section 2, item B, Color and Architecture, and it's 2 inconsistency with Section 2, item C, regarding (Wireless Telecommunications Facility) WTFs 3 and camouflage. 4 The Commission clarified that the intent is that all WTFs should be concealed and camouflaged. s Chair Melsha stated that the outline captures the intent of the Commission and that it really only 6 needs to be cleaned up. 7 Commissioner Tillman restated her concern that a CUP may not be a great enough barrier for 8 areas outside of the TOD. Chair Melsha indicated that he understood her point, but stated that 9 they do not want to be too stringent on not wanting towers anywhere because the City needs 10 them. 11 Chair Melsha asked Mr. Smith if he was aware of City restrictions in relation to the CUP 12 standards. Mr. Smith stated he believed that there existed some language that discusses the 13 factors that the Planning Commission would consider when determining whether the standards 14 for a CUP were being met. Mr. Smith indicated that one of those standards was distance to 4 other residential structures. 16 Mr. Smith indicated that he felt there were reasons for which the Commission could deny a 17 CUP request, and that it was rare that as decision was reversed if properly and reasonably 18 documented. 19 Chair Melsha indicated that members from the subcommittee would meet with Mr. Smith in the 20 near future to clean up the draft and further discuss some of the issues discussed this evening. 21 9.2 Point of Sale Ordinance Discussion. 22 Susan Henry stated that a subcommittee has met to discuss a draft from 1998 draft that did not 23 go forward to the City Council. She added that overall the subcommittee felt that it was a good 24 idea, and the proposed draft works pretty well. 25 Ms. Henry outlined what the subcommittee identified as important concepts and aspects of the 26 process. 27 Chair Melsha asked if a misdemeanor was a uniform penalty for not complying with the Point- 28 Of-Sale Ordinance. Ms. Henry stated it was in order to keep home-owners in cooperation. 29 Commissioner Steeves stated that the main difference between the St. Anthony and New Hope 0 Point-Of-Sale evaluations was that the New Hope evaluation was more specific. 31 Commissioner Steeves asked if they could ascertain experience from other cities whether they 32 have other opportunities to rectify a situation before it becomes a misdemeanor. Commissioner