1998-03-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

March 25, 1998 Plan Commission Minutes Page 6 map showing existing tower locations in the area. Mr. Hill pointed out that even though there had been negotiations with the University City School District, the application had not been reviewed by the University City Historic Preservation Commission. 6) Whether or not there are other limiting conditions that render existing towers, structures or buildings within the applicant’s required geographic area unsuitable. **There are no existing towers within that area per the provided map showing existing tower locations in the area. 7) Whether the design of the tower or structure, including the telecommunications antennas, shelter, and ground layout maximally reduces visual degradation and otherwise complies with the provisions and intent of this ordinance. The application proposes a tower with limited visual impact. 8) Whether the proposal minimizes the number and size of the towers or structures that will be required in the geographic area surrounding the proposed site. **If other providers take advantage of this tower, per zoning requirements, it will minimize the number and size of the towers or structures that will be required in the geographic area. 9) Whether the applicant failed to take advantage of available shared use options provided by this ordinance or otherwise. **There are no existing towers within that area per the provided map showing existing tower locations in the area. He recommends approval of this application with the following conditions: 1) A detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Director of Planning for review. The landscape material shall be installed and shall be maintained in accordance with the plan. Said plan shall be submitted and approved prior to the operation being used for vehicle repair. 2) Construction, maintenance and operation of the tower shall be in strict compliance with Section 34- 64 of the University City Zoning Code. Mr. Rose stated that if there was possible problems with interference this would be the forum at which to address them. Chairperson Solodar opened the public hearing and asked for testimony from the public. Theophilus Caldwell, 1444 Mendell, stated that he was concerned with possible health risks associated with the tower, animals from the surrounding woods being displaced and causing damage and harm in the area and the possible drop in property values. Napoleon Amerson, 1430 Mendell, stated that he was concerned with the possible disturbance with the quietness of the neighborhood and the possibility of commercial uses moving into the area. He later stated that he was concerned with the fallen trees in along the edge of the cemetery property. Louis Booth, 7904 Wayne, stated that he was concerned with the upkeep of the cemetery grounds after the tower goes up because it is not well kept now. Elnora Amerson, 1430 Mendell, stated that she was concerned with water run-off coming onto her property, lightning being drawn to the tower. Larry Steinman, 13788 Conway, St. Louis, MO 63141 (314) 469-0700, stated that he is the representative for the United Hebrew Congregation, owners of the cemetery. He stated that there will never be commercial uses in the cemetery, that they have insured that the tower will not be unsightly, the lease is for 5 years with a 5 year option, and that the income from the tower will be used to improve the cemetery property which will benefit the area. Ossie Conner, 7864 Wayne, stated that she lives directly behind the cemetery and she is concerned with the lack of upkeep on the property. Richard Brown, 1414 Mendell, stated that he was concerned with the noise from the tower. Leonard Dillon, 1348 Mendell, stated that it will be impossible to hide the tower because it will be much higher than the trees and that will cause wpoffice\wpdata\m-3-25.plc