BOA minutes 011116 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 10/10/2016 3 1 Samantha Cabe: So would it be safe to say that the standard is to evaluate this modification together with 2 the original applications so it meets all the standards as modified? So the SUP as modified must meet the 3 standards that we apply from section 5.3 of the UDO; is that safe to say? 4 5 James Bryan: I’d say all of that’s correct but… There’s also specific standa rds of the evaluation for telecom 6 towers… I think the crux of it is 5.10.8 (B) (4) and those are standards of evaluation, there’s 23 standards of 7 evaluation for telecom facilities. 8 9 Samantha Cabe: Ok, thank you. 10 11 Michael Harvey: If that’s all, I’ll quickly move through staff reports and turn it over to the applicant. So we 12 have an agenda attachment at the beginning of page 51; within this packet you have staff’s abstract, you 13 have a property vicinity map on page 58 and on page 59 is the application package, beginning on page 81 14 you have notification materials…inaudible… Under separate cover was an 11x17 copy of the site plan. As 15 you’ll know from various e-mails to address some of James’ concerns we’ve produced additional material 16 for you, including a revised attachment 4 which is the SUP findings and fact which I will walk you through 17 from staffs standpoint. A supplemental packet of information that begins on pages 200 -341, and this is a 18 copy of the original SUP that was reviewed and acted upon on April 8, 1996. This is … finds on page 240. 19 We also have structural analyses that have been prepared on this tower dealing with change out and 20 existing independence. 21 22 So Madam Chair, what I ask first is that the provided abstract that you would have all been sent since 23 apparently page 52 wasn’t included in the packet you were sent, as well as the supplemental material again 24 pages 200-341, revised attachment 4 and a copy of the UDO all be entered into the record. 25 26 MOTION made by Susan Halkiotis. Seconded by Karen Barrows. 27 VOTE: Unanimous 28 29 Documents admitted to record. 30 31 Michael Harvey: Thank you. Very quickly I would like to turn it over to the applicant. What is occurring with 32 this request, as detailed within my abstract and also detailed within the applicant’s proposal, this is an 33 existing tower facility that was permitted 1986 by the BOA of the issuance of a Class B SUP. It is a 34 maximum 160 foot tall telecommunications tower. The original access and the approved site plan came 35 through Landau Drive, allowing it affording access to this property. As indicated by the applicant due by 36 potential modification development sale of property they chose to secure a more direct, more consistent, 37 access route and have chosen to come off Old Oak Place, an existing, publicly maintained roadway to get 38 access to the tower. The site plan submitted shows proposed location of the easement and discusses the 39 development of the driveway. Obviously this is coming off an existing state maintained road so it would be 40 handled as any other residential driveway. One comment on making the onset before we get into depth; 41 one concern that was raised at the neighborhood meeting was, is this a precursor to future and furt her 42 development of this parcel? And the answer is no. If this modification is approved and if this driveway is 43 moved this does not grant the development authority to this property other than allowing this easement as 44 shown and there’s nothing on the site plan affording access to telecommunication tower. So this is not a 45 precursor for subdivision. This is not a precursor for any further development on this property. This is just 46 merely to grant easement to get the tower access. If the undeveloped 24 -acre parcel is developed, that 47 easement will have to be preserved to maintain or the applicant will have to come back through and do 48 another modification to address access. 49