My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2016.01.14 PC Packet
Hugo
>
Community Development
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Agendas/Packets
>
2016 PC Packets
>
2016.01.14 PC Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/13/2016 9:39:13 AM
Creation date
1/13/2016 9:19:17 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commissions
Meeting Date
1/14/2016
Document Type
Agenda/Packets
Commission Name
Planning
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
52
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Juba stated that this deposit would be a letter of credit or something similar where if after the 90 days the <br />system isn't removed then the City would be able to use that to remove the system, but this money wouldn't be <br />turned over to the property owner to remove the system. <br />Commissioner Arcand stated that he wasn't clear on number 8a. He stated that this line states that approval <br />should not be any longer than 3 years. <br />Juba stated that this must be a typo and the 3 years is supposed to be 25 years, as that is generally the length of a <br />solar farm contract. <br />Commissioner Arcand asked if 3(f) is a date that is to be determined or if that is something under review. <br />Juba stated that the solar farm use could be approved from 1-25 years. She said it was similar to the home <br />occupation permit where it can be approved for up to 5 years. At the time the applicant applies, they can apply <br />for a certain term and the Planning Commission or staff will set a recommended date. <br />Leitz stated that solar farm contracts generally ran for 25 years. She said these projects are expensive and if <br />there is no possibility that someone can have a term up to 25 years, the chances that someone would want to risk <br />installing a solar farm is small. <br />Commissioner Arcand stated that he was surprised to see that the City would allow solar farms within <br />floodplains. <br />Leitz stated that the ORC decided that they would be willing to see a project in this location because they did <br />not want to use prime developable land for solar farms. <br />Juba stated that many people believe that all floodplains are wetlands, which is not true. She stated that it's <br />unlikely that solar farms can be constructed within wetlands, but may be able to be put in floodplains. <br />Commissioner Arcand asked if there is flexibility on screening. He gave an example of driving down <br />Frenchman Road and the elevation dropping down where people can see over a mile of landscape. He stated <br />that there is no way a project could be screened from that view. <br />Leitz stated that the screening requirement was mostly geared towards the screening of a project from <br />neighboring properties. <br />Commissioner Arcand suggested that staff look at that section and see if there needs to be a clarification on who <br />the system is being screened from. <br />Commissioner Arcand asked if this ordinance will be tweaked as time moves on. <br />Leitz stated that staff can look at the changes suggested by the Planning Commission and the public before it <br />moves onto the City Council. She stated that otherwise, the ORC had a project before that consisted of looking <br />at other ordinances and cleaning them up. Leitz described that solar technology is changing and that the <br />ordinance could be altered at that time, depending if the change effects the ordinance. <br />Commissioner Arcand wanted to clarify that approving this ordinance would not mean that it's the end of <br />looking at it and possibly making changes. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.