07/08/2003 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

not be a problem. They will not see the base. There is no noise involved and typically there is no lighting. He said the FAA may require them to use a dual strobe light. Mr. O'Grady said to clarify, the property in question is on the south side of I-480 by Cypress. The concern of the family that owns that property is that there may be a possibility that someone might be purchasing that property from them. Apparently, if they are looking at the north side of I-480, there is no potential for a direct impact on their property, namely a purchase from Cingular or anyone else. Mr. Block asked if Mr. O'Grady is asking if Cingular is interested in putting a tower on that property. Mr. O'Grady said with Cingular's current plans, is there any potential they would be purchasing that property. Mr. Block said no. Mr. Block said he realizes the residents are concerned about the visual impact. There really is nothing else there due to the fact they are coming on to the entrance ramp with a drive instead of on Stearns. There is no traffic impact. There would be maintenance vehicles attending the site once or twice a month. W. Jett asked if there have been occasions where this type of tower has been put within the onramp and the highway. Mr. Block said they have one location where they did the same thing. It is in Independence at Pleasant Valley Road and I-77 at a cloverleaf intersection. Mr. Spalding said he recalls that that location is heavily forested. Mr. Block said west of the tower is heavily treed. He said the Austrian pine they plan to use grow to 40 feet. It may take a while but they are fast growing and resistant to salt. Mr. Hreha said they would need redwoods to cover the tower. Mr. Spalding asked if they looked at the industrial area. He asked if that was considered a feasible location. Mr. Block said the farther they move west the more they get into Site 62. They had a couple of options but this is what they went with. The CEI tower is pretty far south. Any direction they shift from the proposed location they would get into another tower, and it opens up a gap in another direction. They know there are none in the area they can co- locate on. He said Cingular prefers to co-locate from a financial standpoint. Mr. Hreha asked if they are renting space when they co-locate. Mr. Block confirmed that. Mr. Allan directed a question to Mr. O'Malley and said he received a letter in his packet from O.D.O.T. that gives a favorable recommendation to this project. He said since this tower is proposed to be built in the state right of way, he asked if the ultimate decision is in the hands of the city or would O.D.O.T. be able to come in and override a decision the board makes. Laip Deparrment Ouestians ana evmmenrs: Mr. O'Malley said the state has a qualified immunity from our local zoning code. They have the ability to license a carrier like this and the carrier comes in with that same immunity. He has seen instances where a city has attempted to put the state or its licensee through a variance or conditional use permit analysis and the city's regulations were not upheld in court. He said this applicant is in a permitted site with a permitted use in this area. Our zoning code is complying with the state's immunity. The state does not have absolute immunity. They do not just ignore the local controls. They go through the process, make application, and address issues of site conditions, landscaping, and lighting. However, it is not within the board's authority to deny them. If the board was to recommend a denial, he does not believe it could be sustained. This chapter of the code was put together in an effort to respect federal law in this area as well. He added, we have yet to see a lease agreement with the state. It has not been provided to the engineer. He said the applicant and the state tend to designate a leased area and limit the improvements that they propose to that area. He said the board might want to view the site as the entire triangle and other additional improveinents can be required. Mr. O'Malley said to consider O.D.O.T. the landlord and this is the tenant. The tenant comes in with a proposal and there are things you expect of the landlord relating to the site. It is within the board's authority to inquire and make reasonable requests for improvements. He does not believe O.D.O.T. was represented directly the last time a proposal came through. Mr. Allan said it appears there are a lot of unanswered questions and the project is still pending FAA approval. He said he does not see how they can proceed with the project. He suggested it be tabled. Mr. O'Malley said there are alternatives to that. The board can send it on to the Architectural Review Board for review of landscaping and require that it come back. There could be work done on the site or suggestions made so it returns. 5