11/12/1997 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 1997 Page 13 Mr. Dunn asked if the proposed project included any unique landscape features. Ms. Wyland responded that there is no requirement for landscaping, as the hanger site is not visible either from the road or from the lake. Mr. Johnson asked if the site would only contain the two hangers. Ms. Wyland responded that the site would include the two hangers, Mr. Hanson's home, and the landing strip. Mr. Johnson asked if there were any concerns regarding parking. Mr. Hanson stated that there are very few guests on the site. Most vehicles are parked adjacent to the planes which are stored on the site. In any event, parking is more than adequate. Chair Schaps pointed out the unique nature of this installation. Mr. Robinson asked how many planes are currently housed on the site. Mr. Hanson responded approximately 55. Mr. Hanson added that he intends to include berming with trees in order to avoid the possibility of a visibility issue in the future. • Chair Schaps explained that he spends a good deal of time at the lake, and has never noticed the planes in the past. • Mr. Robinson made a MOTION to approve the Surfside Seaplane Base site plan review, supported by Mr. Johnson. Motion carried 7 -0. G. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC BEARING, Telecommunication Ordinance Mr. Brixius explained that this matter was recently discussed at a Council work session where Staff was given direction to amend the proposed ordinance, making it as restrictive as legally possible. The Economic Development Director indicated favor with use of semi- public district, but not with commercial. Therefore, consideration may be given to use of semi - public and industrial districts for personal wireless service antenna towers. Mr. Brixius added that the advantage to use of semi- public and industrial districts would be limiting antenna towers to areas that are most attractive, along the freeway corridor, and that are least intrusive on the residential environment in rural areas. He stated that a concern is that under the 1996 Telecommunications Act the City cannot adopt an ordinance that would prohibit these services or prohibit them from being competitive. Mr. Brixius has requested review and comment by Attorney Barry Sullivan, who has not yet provided a written response. However, he did indicate to Mr. Brixius that a more restrictive ordinance might be appropriate with adequate reason. Mr. Brixius stated that a study has been suggested which will identify areas of oppportunity and coverage of antenna locations. The effect of a denial would not restrict competitiveness within the community.