Agenda - Council - 01/08/2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Edwards replied elevation is helpful, but this is a hilly area. The ten acre requirement is what precludes them in the location they are looking at. Mr. Fountain stated the City Council has within its powers the ability to grant variances. He cannot reasonably understand why a tower of this size is going to require ten acres. Higher elevation is available in the industrial park. The reasons he has presented are reasonable enough to deny this request and to request a serious study of a location in the industrial park. Motion by Commissioner Cleveland, seconded by Commissioner Van Scoy, to close the public hearing. . Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Nixt, Commissioners Cleveland, Van Scoy, Brauer, Hunt, Levine, and Trites Rolle. Voting No: None. Absent: None. The public hearing was clo.sed at 7:32 p.m. Commission Business Chairperson Nixt called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission back to order at 7:32 p.m. Chairperson Nixt requested an assessment of what would be required for a tower in the industrial park. He commented he would suspect T -Mobile has demographic data that could be drawn on without having to do an additional study. Civil Engineer II Linton indicated the water tower sits right where Bunker Lake Boulevard turns, and that is the north area of the industrial park. Immediately north of that they are into a residential area, so there is not an industrial site any further north to be evaluated. Chairperson Nixt requested clarification that since there is a waiver of the use restriction from Waste Management there are no further impediments to having the applicant's request meet the. City ordinance. Associate Planner DaInes replied staff is working to get a revised landscaping plan and site location plan, but other than that there are no impediments. Chairperson Nixt questioned how a challenge by the applicant could be defended if the applicant's request were to be denied, and what the basis for denial would be. He stated he understands the desire to preserve the integrity and aesthetics of the parks, but the City has an ordinance that says parks are the intended location for these towers. This site location meets the requirements. He struggles as a member of the Planning Commission to say he agrees with the aesthetics of the parks, but at the same time questions how this location could be denied. As long as the City provides reasonable access through the ordinance they can restrict where these towers can go, but once they have approved where the towers can go, they cannot start backing off without risk of a challenge. The City has designed an ordinance to deal with this issue, and he has a hard time finding reason to send the applicant back to do more research. -260-