Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneousFrom: Shirley Volk To: LSimms Subject: American Tower ~ ,,, ~Q~ _ ~~~ ®~O/ I called John Douglas of American Tower back today and told him that Joey Dunn of the Planning Dept had made the determination that a C.U.P. will not be required for the addition of an appx. 10x20 unmanned shelter to be located on the existing tower site at 4002 University Drive E. I told him all he has to do is turn in 3 sets of building. plans (sealed specs from the manufacturer) with a dimensioned site plan of his lease site, with a dimension noted to the nearest property line. (This site is leased from the owner in the house, according to him.) I suggested that he include a letter from a professional engineer addressing the negligible runoff which will be added as a result of this building... Nat: Pm printing this note to use in a file. Please make up a "parking lot" planning file and put this note in the file for future reference. Thanks. CC: 1~TI'homas, JDunn, SHomeyer From: Tony Michalsky To: CITY HAT,L(SVOLK) Date: 10/23/96 1:23pm Subject: American Tower-Reply We have existing power to the site, so I will just need them to contact me on any additional needs. »> Shirley Volk 10/23/96 01:14pm »> John Douglas of American Tower contacted Jim yesterday to see what they would have to do to add an "„nmanned shelter" (that's a building of apx 10x20) at the site of their tower which has been at it's current location since'78 or'79 (priorto annexation). When we tried to locate it is where the problem began, but I fmally found out from City people that it actually is near the intersection of FM158 & University Drive. You enter the site by going down a drive way to a house and then this drive apparently branches off that drive.. As you go east on Univ. Drive, the drive to the last house on the right is where the entrance is: He says there is an existing "pad of gravel" appx. 100' x 100',: and this building would be set on that "pad" by using a crane to set it. What would he be required to submit and what kind of review would be required for. him to add this building? (Besides a building permit, that is). Keep in mind this is anon-conforming site as a result of annexing it into the City a long time ago. The building is "unmanned" and will probably hold equipment. It will, however, have electric to it. I can't think a PRC review will be required, but I don't really know what he will have to submit. From: Steve Homeyer To: VMORGAN Date: 10/23/96 2:17pm Subject: American Tower -Forwarded -Reply After reading Shirley's a-mail, I would think that it would be ok to add the building. If they are placing the building on a gravel pad, I would not foresee a building of that size causing a problem. The surrounding area is undeveloped and the increased runoff if any would be dissipated before it left the property. »> Veronica Morgan. l0/23/96 02:OOpm »> doesnt sound to me like they need a dp since they arent moving dirt? what do you think? From: Joey Dunn To: JKEE Date: 10/23/96 3:03pm Subject: American Tower -Reply -Reply If you got my last note, you'll know I struggled with the nonconf. issue as well. Technically it is nonconforming structure which could easily be conforming with a cup. I think it would be a waste of their time to try to get the city figure out how to rule on the expansion of anon-conforming use - ie. would we limit it to 25 percent? 25 percent of what? It's just not the same as dealing with other nonconforming structures such as old homes or commercial buildings, or parking areas for that matter. Furthermore, I think that special exceptions are intended for those cases where it is prohibitive for the applicant to comply with current codes, etc. In this case, if we feel that it just absolutely requires zba action, I would encourage them to obtain a cup, if for no other reason than to clear up their nonconformity and maketheir life easier. »> Jane Kee 10/23/96 01:34pm »> Telec. Towers are CUPS in A-P. Joey. -see if you can think like Pete (heaven forbid) and see how he would approach this non;conf. use. The use is non-conf. in thatit is in A-O. Would this storgage bldg. constitute an expansion? The use is not. technically expanding but the site improvements are, I guess. If you want to talk, holler »> Shirley Volk 10/23/96 01:14pm »> John Douglas of American -Tower contacted Jim yesterday to see what they would have to do to add an "unmanned shelter" (that's a building of apx 10x20) at the site of their tower which has been at it's current location since '78 or '79 (prior to annexation).. When we tried to locate it is where the problem began, but I finally found out from City people. that it actually is near the intersection of FM158 & University Drive. You enter the site by going down a drive way to a house and then this drive apparently branches off that drive. As you go east on Univ. Drive, the drive to°the last house on the right is where the entrance is. He says there is an existing "pad of gravel" appx. 100' x 100', and this building would be set on that "pad" by using a crane. to set it. What would he be required to submit and what kind of review would be required for him to add this building? (Besides a building permit, that is). Keep in mind this is anon-conforming site as a result of annexing. it into the City a long time ago. The building is "unmanned" and will probably hold equipment. It will, however, have electric to it. I can't think a PRC :review will be required, but I don't really know what he will have to submit. CC: jcallaway From: Jane Kee To: JDUNN Date: 10/23/96 3:lOpm Subject: American Tower -Reply -Reply -Reply -Reply -Reply. Reply thanks - jeez that's confusing. Why don't you go look at if and then if you feel it doesn't warrant any big to do, I'll go along with that. »> Joey Dunn 10/23/96 03:06pm »> well, it's specifically listed as a cup under a-o, a-p, and m-1, and cumulative under a-ox, c-l, c-2, and c-3. »> Jane Kee 10/23/96 02:59pm »> where does it say that? I have a BRAND NEW ORD. and I can't find that. »> Joey Dunn 10/23/96 02:52pm »> a-o, a-ox, c-1, c-2, c-3, m-1, . they're permitted uses in m-2. »> Jane Kee 10/23/96 02:49pm »> where all can you get a CUP for these towers other than A P? »> Joey Dunn 10/23/96 02:43pm »> Sounds to me like it's in A-O, which means that it's. only nonconforming in that ist doesn't have cup on file (nor other screening or site improvements that could have been required during consideration of cup). First of all, we need to see a rough site plan of the property and the proposed bldg location, relative to setbacks, etc. The question is, should they get a cup to add an accessory structure - I would think they should if the structure had obvious land use impacts (just like some of the old churches that don't have cup's but we required them to obtain cup's to add accessory structures & uses), but in this case, it is small, it seems to be removed from view, and probably does not increase the intensity of the. principal use which is the tower. I would say no to prc or cup, but we really need more info and probably drive out and look at it before we can tell them that. »> Shirley Volk 10/23/96 01:14pm »> John Douglas of American Tower contacted Jim yesterday to see what they would have to do to add an "unmanned shelter" (that's a building of apx 10x20) at the site of their tower which has been at it's current location since '78 or '79 (prior to annexation)... When we tried to locate it is where the: problem. began, but I finally found out from City people that it actually is near the intersection of FM158 & University Drive. You enter the site by going down a drive way to a house and then this drive apparently branches off that drive. As you go east on Univ. Drive, the drive to the last house on the right is where the entrance is. He says there is an existing "pad of gravel" apex. 100' x 100', and this building would be set on that "pad" by using a crane to set it. What would he be required to submit and what kind of review would be required for him to add this building? (Besides a building permit, that is). Keep in mind this is anon-conforming site as a result of annexing if into the City a long time ago. The building is "unmanned" and will probably hold equipment. It will, however, have electric to it. I can't think a PRC review will be required, but I don't really know what he will have to submit.