CCP 03-08-1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . p'..nnintY n.....iASion Meetilxl 03-3-93 9 Cl\SE #93-04 (OonHnneo'l) . be to reIroVe existin] uses that are likely to have an adverse inpact on the further development of the Area. '!he radio tower was identified as a "site liability". 3. 'Ihe property was rezoned from R-l to GB Gateway Business District. 'Ihe GB District does not allOVl towers (mi"""'llaneous towers in the definitions) and therefore the Vaughn tower is now a non-conformin] use. Pre-exi.stin] non-conformin:J uses are allowed to continue but are not allowed to be "... enlarged, intensified, increased, extended to occupy a greater area of the lot on which is located...". Adding another buildin;J on the tower site would clearly not be allowed under this provision. 4. The proposed Zoning Ordinance classifies such towers as Special Accessory Uses - meaning that the uses are only allowed if they are accessorv to a orinciole use on the premises and then allowed only by SUP. This tower is not aCCE'SSorv to a principal use so it will also be non-conf=minq after adoption of the new Ordinance. 5. The Development M:lratorium Ordinance was enacted to protect the City against development that is contrary to the proposed Ordinance even though it may have been permitted urxier the old Ordinance. Planner Bergly recommended that the Development M:lratorium Ordinance not be waived. . Cllair winiecki asked if there were any questions or comments from the flo=, hearin] none, she closed the public hearin] at 9:10 pm. Cllair winiecki asked if there were any questions = comments from the Commission. Erickson questioned if construction of the equipment builclinJ is necessary = if the equipment could be housed in the existin] builclinJ. Mr. Kent sticha representin] U S West stated the proposed builclinJ does not present a sul::stantial invesbnent f= the company, as it is a pre-fab builclinJ to houses controls and electrical equipnent and is easily IllOIIE!d . He advised it is a~sory in purpose and size, although a foundation f= the buildin] was also proposed. stica noted their engineer determined this tower would be an excellent cell site f= the northern suburban area and explained cell sites are ocassionally relocated to better serve cellular users. He further advised the existin] buildin] is too small to house the additional equipment. Mr. sticha proposed for Commission consideration that the tower be classified as the principle use of the site and the antennae and the equipment buildin] be deemed as the accessory use. Planner Bergly indicated the ordinance was drafted so that such operations as a radio station would be classified as a principle use and . the antennae attached to that principle use would be classified as the accessory use. Petersen questioned the life expectancy of this operation.