05/22/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES COUNCIL HEARINGS PANEL MAY 15, 1978 Page 3 e Mr. Bradley asked Mr. Halvorsen if he had any response to the opponents. Mr. Halvorsen stated that the small antenna was for testing and will come down soon. He further stated that as a tenant, he is landscaping the property to show good faith to the neighbors. He further stated there was a variance for an antenna which had been taken down in 1975. Mr. Bradley called for comments from the staff. Mr. Gilkison entered the following as exhibits: three photographs of the ~ntenna; memorandum of. May 15, 1978, with preliminary staff findings; memorandum of May 1, 1978. with procedures; letter from Mr. Halvorsen dated April 10. 1978, appealing the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals; minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals dated March 30. 1978; original appeal request filed March 9, 1978; letter from neighbors to ,Crest Drive Neighborhood Association dated February 27. 1978; letter from Crest Drive Association dated March 28, 1978; original staff report to Zoning Board of Appeals; notice of public hearing before Zoning Board of Appeals; notice of public hearing before the Hearings Panel and excerpts from City Code Sections 9.732 through 9.758 and Section 9.536. Mr. Giikison stated that the request was first heard on March 30, 1978, and after hearing proponents. opponents. and staff. a motion was made to approve the request. He further stated that two of three members present voted to allow the tower; one voted against. Because Section 9.742 requires three concurrent votes, the matter was denied. There were no further motions. He stated that Section 9.536 covers roof struc- tures and architectural features including antenna towers. allowing these features to be erected not more than 18 feet above the height of the building. He further stated the staff recommendation is based on Section 9.752, which sets forth criteria for evaluating variance requests. - Mr. Bradley stated he would like to have the opportunity to tour the property and see this antenna on-site and also have an opportunity to read the information which was presented today. He further stated that he would like to schedule the decision for a later date. e Mr. lieuallen moved to deny the appeal. Mr. Bradley stated he could not second that motion. Mr. lieuallen stated he felt the Code was quite specific and required affirmative findings on several counts, and no one had demonstrated that, and therefore the panel was not allowed to grant the variance. ~ 3" 1 ~