Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Swift presented the staff report. Staff reviewed the proposed a lication in conjunction <br />with the new code provisions which have not been adopted; therefo staff is asking that <br />Council add a condition that the approval of this pole would not be e ective until the <br />effective date of the adoption of the ordinance that would allow the 'height. Staff also <br />recommends the applicant landscape the base of the pole as required y the code. Staff <br />would like to add Condition 3c requiring the applicant to offer to the property owner of the <br />apartment complex additional screening trees in that particular area. If the owner of that <br />apartment complex accepts the additional trees, he would then have e maintenance <br />obligation, not the developer. Staff recommends approval of Z-93-l with the modified <br />conditions of approval. <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. <br /> <br /> <br />ge 3, paragraph 2, 3rd <br />ivision map provisions. <br /> <br />In response to Commissioner Hovingh's request for clarifIcation of <br />sentence, Mr. Beougher stated the intent was to exempt from the su <br /> <br />Courtney Kullman, 651 Gateway Blvd., So. San Francisco represen the application. Mr. <br />Kullman referred to the Page 3, Item 1 of the staff report, clarifying that there will no more <br />than 12 antennas (not 18 as stated in the report). Mr. Kullman sho ed an example of the <br />proposed antenna configuration. He stated that the applicant is not sed to landscaping <br />though he noted that the land is being leased and was confIdent that agreeable landscaping <br />plan could be reached. It is unknown whether the apartment owners would want extra <br />screening trees, thereby increasing their maintenance/water costs. noted that they cannot <br />force the apartment owners to accept trees as well as to maintain th . He also stated that <br />he feels the visual impact will be minor to the apartment complex. <br /> <br />The applicant discussed the configuration of the proposed antenna, s <br />design is much less obtrusive. <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Swift stated that the applicant can only offer to plant additional ning trees. If the <br />apartment complex declines the trees, the applicant does not have to plant them. <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hovingh questioned if other cellular companies can r uest more poles and <br />would the Commission make a map for pole placement. In respon ,Mr. Swift said they <br />had the right to ask but no map would be made. Mr. Swift also sta that residential areas <br />were the only areas able to exclude pole placement. <br /> <br />Commissioner Mahern stated she thought screening trees were nece sary for the apartment <br />complex. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wright felt the landscaping requirements were too m ch because of a lack of <br />space between the fence and the building. Would like to change th 24" box size to 15 <br />gallon. <br /> <br />PJanning Commission Minutes August 11, 1993 <br /> <br />Page 12 <br />