Meeting Information
-Convene
-The Pledge of Allegiance
-Consider approval of minutes for April 18 and April 30, 2007
-Proclamation-Mental Health Month (Marilyn Sell)
CONSENT AGENDA
(1) (a) Consider approval of Commission Orders
REGULAR AGENDA
Planning Items:
(2) (a) CUP-02-04-07: Conditional Use Permit for a Child Care Center at First United Methodist Church, located at 867 Highway 40. Submitted by Tracy Kihm, for First United Methodist Church, property owner of record. (Lisa Pool is the Planner)
(b) CUP-03-05-07: Conditional Use Permit for a Verizon Wireless cellular tower, located at 261 E 1250 Road, Baldwin City. Submitted by Verizon Wireless, for Judy Masur, property owner of record. (Sandra Day is the Planner)
(3) Meet with Advisory Committee for Hesper Charter Road Improvement District (Keith Browning)
(4) Discuss treatment of vegetation in the southwest arm of Lone Star Lake (Keith Browning)
(5) Other Business
(a) Consider approval of Accounts Payable (if necessary)
(b) Appointments
(c) Miscellaneous
(d) Public Comment
(6) Adjourn
Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 with all members present. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
McElhaney moved to approve the minutes for April 18 and April 30, 2007. The motion was seconded by Jones and carried unanimously.
PROCLAMATION 05-16-07
David Johnson read a Proclamation proclaiming the month of May 2007 as "Mental Health Month." David Johnson, CEO, Bert Nash, thanked the Board for Douglas County's contribution to the Bert Nash Center. Bob Johnson moved approval of the Proclamation as read; McElhaney seconded and the motion carried 3-0.
CONSENT AGENDA 05-16-07
Jones moved approval of the following Consent Agenda:
► Commission Order Nos. 07-127, 07-128, 07-129 and 07-130 (on file in the office of the County Clerk);
The motion was seconded by McElhaney and carried unanimously.
PLANNING 05-16-07
The Board considered item CUP-02-03-07, a Conditional Use Permit for a Child Care Center at First United Methodist Church located at 867 Highway 40. The application was submitted by Tracy Kihm, for First United Methodist Church, property owner of record. Lisa Pool, Lawrence/Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Department, was present for the discussion. Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit for a Child Care Center at First United Methodist Church and forwarding it to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval based on the following findings of fact:
Zoning and land uses of properties nearby. Properties in each direction are zoned A (Agricultural) District and include agricultural and large-lot single-family residential uses. A parcel across U.S. Highway 40, northeast of the subject property, is zoned B-1 (Neighborhood Business) District and includes a rural residence.
Character of the area. The area is characterized by rural residences and farmland. The subject property is located just outside the western edge of the Lawrence City limits, and is located within the Urban Growth Area.
Suitability of subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted. Child care centers are permitted in any county zoning district with a Conditional Use Permit. As a church has existed on the site since 2006, the property has proven its suitability for institutional uses. Additionally, the West 6th Street and K-10 Nodal Plan identified the subject corner as appropriate for public/institutional and office/industrial/warehouse uses.
Length of time subject property has remained vacant as zoned. The property has been zoned A (Agricultural) District since the adoption of the 1966 County Zoning Regulations. The First Methodist Church has existed on the site since 2006.
Extent to which approving the rezoning will detrimentally affect nearby properties. The property has been zoned A (Agricultural) District since the adoption of the 1966 County Zoning Regulations. The First United Methodist Church has existed on the site since 2006.
Extent to which removal of restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property. The applicant proposes to add the use of a child care center to an existing church. A four-foot tall ornamental steel fence with gate will be added around an existing playground area.
Parcels surrounding the proposed project range in size from three acres to 100 acres and include large-lot residences and agricultural uses. The Nodal Plan for West 6th Street and K-10 identifies the subject corner as appropriate for public/institutional/warehouse uses. The plan also calls for office/industrial/ warehouse uses to the north, across W. 6th Street, and commercial uses on the innermost portions of the northeast and southeast corners of the intersection.
Per the request of the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT), the first seven steps of a Traffic Impact Study (TIS), including technical support regarding turn lanes and site distance information, were submitted with the subject Conditional Use Permit request. KDOT determined that either the existing temporary access point should be removed (with construction of the John Wesley Drive) or a left-turn lane on westbound US-40 should be added to serve the temporary access point. KDOT's determination was based on several factors. Specifically, KDOT granted the temporary access point with the previous church site plan based on 22 trips in the peak hour on a typical weekday. The TIS submitted for the child care center includes an estimate of 43 trip ends in the a.m. peak hour.
As a follow-up to KDOT's request for a left-turn lane, the applicant's representative submitted a full TIS to KDOT. Based on the recommendations of the TIS, KDOT recommends that a westbound left-turn lane be added for the temporary access point. This left-turn lane has been shown conceptually on the site plan. A permit application that include scaled plans with details of the area from the west ramp terminus of K-10 to 300 feet west of the site's temporary driveway should be submitted to KDOT. Approval of the subject CUP is conditioned upon approval of the KDOT permit.
Relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare by the destruction of the value of the petitioner's property as compared to the hardship imposed upon the individual landowners. Approval of the First Methodist Church child care center would benefit the church by permitting a child care center during the week. Denial of the request would result in the church not being able to provide child care services for its church members and others. With the addition of a deceleration and left-turn lane into the site, roadway safety concerns will be addressed.
Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed location of the child care center conforms to Horizon 2020 location criteria for school facilities by being located where direct access is provide to an arterial street, W. 6th Street. Additionally, the church property includes ample open space, with 74,981 square feet of building and pavement area on a 1,888,303 square foot property.
It is also important to note that the Nodal Plan for West 6th Street and K-10 identifies the subject corner as appropriate for public/institutional and office/industrial/ warehouse uses. The plan also calls for office/industrial/warehouse uses to the north, across W. 6th Street, and commercial uses on the innermost corners of the northeast and southeast corners of the intersection.
The Planning Commission recommendation is subject to the following conditions:
1. Documentation of licensure of the child care center from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment.
2. Submittal and approval of a Kansas Department of Transportation permit application that includes scaled plans with details of the area from the west ramp terminus of K-10 to 300 feet west of the site's temporary driveway.
3. Revision of the site plan to include the following:
a. Revision of the child care center information to include the maximum numbers of classes, children, and teachers expected on each weekday. Information for the pre-school classes and parent's day out program should be included.
b. Addition of a note, stating that if the number of children or classes is increased beyond the numbers noted on the plan, the Douglas County Zoning Codes Enforcement Officer will be contacted for further instruction.
Johnson stated he preferred to issue a 10-year duration for the CUP with a five year review and questioned why the firm number of 52 children. Pool stated the limit was in response to a traffic impact study. The Planning Commission recommends that the Board recommend to KDOT that the speed limit on US-40 be reduced to 45-mph. Jones agreed it was necessary but wants that to go through Keith Browning, Director of Public Works. The applicant's engineer, Landplan Engineering, is to provide Browning with a copy of the TIS. Browning will then recommend to the BOCC whether or not to follow through on the request to KDOT.
Johnson opened for Public Comment.
Tracy Kihm, member First United Methodist Church, stated the church has no problem with a 10-year CUP permit and the number of children was based on space and Health Department regulations.
Johnson closed the public hearing.
Jones moved to approve CUP-02-04-07 Conditional Use Permit for a Child Care Center with the conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission; and that the CUP be amended to reflect the permit will last for 10 years with a review period of five years as consistent with all County CUP's issued. The motion was seconded by McElhaney and carried 3-0.
Johnson directed Craig Weinaug, County Administrator, to forward information to Keith Browning, Director of Public Works, regarding the deceleration and left-turn lane into the site's temporary drive as addressed in the Traffic Impact Study, and for Browning to contact KDOT regarding this issue.
PLANNING 05-16-07
The Board considered item CUP-03-05-07 a Conditional Use Permit for a Verizon Wireless cellular tower, located at 261 E 1250 Road, Baldwin City, Kansas. The application was submitted by Verizon Wireless for Judy Masur, property owner of record. Sandra Day, Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Department was present for the discussion. Day confirmed the receipt by the Board of the colored copy of an independent study provided by the applicant along with the protest petition. A protest petition was received in the office of the Douglas County Clerk on May 2, 2007 and was certified as valid by the Douglas County Clerk on May 7, 2007. Johnson then clarified that in order for the Conditional Use Permit to be approved, a 3-0 vote is required. The Planning Commission has forwarded the item to the Board with a recommendation of approval based on the following findings of fact:
Zoning and land uses of properties nearby. The subject property is zoned for agricultural uses. It is developed with an existing residence located approximately 500 feet west of the existing Highway right-of-way. The proposed tower is approximately 330 feet west of the existing Highway right-of-way. The subject property abuts Highway 59 along the east property line. An existing residential driveway provides access to the house and the proposed cell tower site. Detailed plans are not available from the County Public Works Department at this time, however preliminary highway designs do not indicate that the subject property will be affected or reduced by the proposed highway project (scheduled 2009-2011). The new right-of-way line is estimated to be located several hundred feet to the east of the existing center line of Highway 59. Surrounding uses include existing rural residential homes along the Highway frontage as well as existing.
Character of the area. The character of the area includes rural residential homes and agricultural fields and activities. The subject property is located south of the Highway 56/59 intersection known as Baldwin Junction.
Suitability of subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted. The current zoning of the subject property will not be altered by the proposed request.
The subject property is zoned A (Agricultural) and the existing and proposed uses consistent with the recommended land use of the County Zoning Regulations.
Length of time subject property has remained vacant as zoned. The subject property is developed with an existing home on 59.4 acres. The property has been zoned for agricultural purposes since 1966.
Extent to which approving the rezoning will detrimentally affect nearby properties. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit d s not amend the base zoning district requirements and land use limitations that exist for the subject property. Detrimental effects are related to aesthetic concerns as expressed by residents of the area. Placement of the tower in relationship to the existing private air strip d s require additional consideration as noted in the review with regard to lighting and marking (painting) of the proposed tower.
Relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare by the destruction of the value of the petitioner's property as compared to the hardship imposed upon the individual landowners. There are no apparent physical detriments to the public health, safety, and welfare by the proposed request. Impacts to the area are one of an aesthetic nature as noted by comments received by staff during the review period from property owners in the area.
Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Horizon 2020 d s not directly address the issue of conditional uses. The plan provides basic guidance regarding major infrastructure improvements and urges that such uses be carefully planned and provided. The provision of such services should be focused in existing service areas to address growth. Additionally, placement and visual appearance are a key consideration in creating compatibility. The plan notes that extension of electric and hard phone service connections to the proposed tower site will be underground.
The Planning Commission recommendation is subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of a revised site plan to show the following:
a. Proposed landscape around the enclosure of the tower base per staff approval;
b. Dimensions of the tower from the south property line;
2. Provision of a revised site plan to include the following notes per Section 19-4 (31) (c) (4&5)
a. "Any tower that is not in use for a period of three continuous years, or more, shall be removed by the owner at the owner's expense. Failure to remove the tower pursuant to non-use may result in removal and assessment of cost to the owner of the tower."
b. "A sign shall be posted on the exterior of the fence around the base of the tower noting the name and telephone number of the tower owner and operator."
c. "The tower owner/operator shall submit a letter to the Planning Office by July 1st of each year listing the current users and types of antenna located on the approved tower (Reference CUP-03-05-07 in the letter)."
3. Provision of a revised site plan to include a landscape plan compliant with Section 19A-4 (10) that notes the size and type of landscape per staff approval.
4. Approval of a Floodplain Development Permit by the County Building and Zoning Department as applicable.
Day provided a location map of the subject property and approximate location of the proposed tower. She said that Planning Staff recommends revising Condition No. 3 to state that the ground-mounted equipment be screened with solid fencing on all four sides. The location of the tower placement on the subject property was discussed with relevance as to the location of an existing runway and the limitation of obstructions. The location of tower setback, as submitted, is within the requirements of the code. Regarding the impact from KDOT Highway 59 alignment project, only a small amount of land will be affected, with no negative affect on the tower or placement requirements.
Curtis Holland, attorney with Polsonelli Law firm representing Verizon Wireless, was present for discussion. Also in the audience representing Verizon Wireless were Dan Fagan, Real Estate Manager with Verizon Wireless; and Sherry Edwards, project manager with Selective Site Consultants. Holland stated there is a need for a tower facility in southern Douglas County to enhance coverage in the area for a dual purpose: an 850 MHz (cellular) license and a 1900 MHz (PCS) license. The location is intended to allow Verizon coverage to county line without encroaching its cellular signals too far into Franklin County. He noted the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval. He stated that an original application submitted to the Planning Commission (for a different site in a different CUP application) received a 5-4 vote, and the application in question received a 6-0-1 vote. Holland stated Verizon took the surrounding property owners recommendation and chose a site Verizon thought the surrounding property owners would approve. There is an airstrip approximately 900' feet from the proposed site, that is only used during the daytime. The tower would also have a significant buffer of about 400' from the roadway. After hearing concerns from the last meeting, especially Mr. Jones' statements, Verizon retained services of a third party, Trott Communications. He stated that Trott submitted a report that confirms the tower is needed. Verizon flew in Raymond Trott, Trott Communications, from Irving, Texas to answer questions regarding the report. Holland stated most of us can not get by without having our phones on our hip. Phones are more than a devise to make a phone call, they are a computer. Also, the public benefits by having another source for 911 access. The tower will provide enhanced coverage to Verizon customers in this portion of the County and meets County standards.
Jones asked Holland to describe the coverage problems in the area that would be addressed by this tower. Holland addressed the request by showing a propagation map, illustrating where the towers are located and the type of cellular (850Mhz) coverage, but d sn't show 1900 MHz coverage. Red shows significant coverage (commercial building coverage), yellow shows the second best coverage (phone service in vehicles and residential structures); darker green showed serviceable coverage (phone service in vehicles, serviceable but not extremely reliable), white showed unreliable coverage. Holland showed an existing coverage map and then showed a preferred coverage map, with the additional tower.
Johnson asked if a new tower would create a red blob or significant coverage. Holland responded that the tower would extend the red area to a point acceptable to Verizon to the Franklin County line. Jones asked Holland to clarify if he was saying there is no coverage at all in that area. Holland responded when speaking in the industry we say 'no coverage,' but that means it is not good coverage. A user could get a signal in some area. He stated this tower is our last option. Jones asked if Verizon has information related to dropped calls. Holland responded that Verizon d s not have that data available, but it would not be pursuing this option if it did not feel it needs a tower in this area.
Johnson asked if Verizon is agreeable with Condition No. 3, on the screening issue as recommended it be revised by Planning Staff. Holland responded Verizon is willing to comply any way the Board requests. Day clarified that Condition No. 3, as revised per Planning Staff recommendation, is written in response to stated neighbor concerns.
McElhaney asked if a 100' tower would serve the purpose. Holland responded that it would not. The tower could be higher, but 150' is a community standard height and Verizon wanted to minimize its impact. McElhaney asked why County-line is a critical issue. Holland responded that Verizon d s not have a license to extend its FCC license into Franklin County. A signal might slightly encroach into Franklin County but Verizon would enter into an agreement with the Franklin County licensee to permit the encroachment. McElhaney stated he did not see boring logs or soil conditions analysis to support a 150' tower. Holland said he did not provide that information with the application, but was sure it was investigated. Holland stated the client will submit construction plans to be approved through the building permitting process and is confident that won't be an issue.
Johnson asked if the tower would provide for additional co-locations. Holland responded it would accommodate three additional carrier platforms, but no other co-location agreements for this tower are in place today.
McElhaney asked what the distance of the site is to the closest existing tower. Holland stated to the north probably about four miles. Jones asked how co-location on those surrounding towers would affect coverage. Holland stated that Verizon is going to co-locate on a tower that is west probably about five miles. Holland replied Verizon is already co-locating on other area towers. He stated Verizon tries to co-locate whenever possible because it is less expensive.
Jones asked Day if there are there other providers who have expressed concern about coverage in this area or expressed that they have adequate coverage in this area. Day responded she is not aware of concerns of any other providers in this area. The communication Staff has had with various providers has primarily expressed interest in the urban area. Verizon has been active in providing coverage for the rural area.
Jones asked if other carriers have adequate coverage in the rural area. Day said she could not confirm that. She stated she spoke with Jim Denny, Director of Emergency Communications, and he has identified this area for emergency purposes as a general area the County is interested in, maybe not this tower. This tower may not fit 100% with plans, but his department would look at it. Jones asked for the location of any other elevated structures or water towers in the area. Day used a map to identify all water towers in the area and noted the lack of suitable options.
Jones questioned if the entire map needs to be red (best possible coverage), or can it be simply green, and how short that tower could be and still provide unbroken green coverage. Holland responded that this tower height is the lowest level and provide reliable coverage. Jones asked if "reliable" means cell phone coverage in cars. Holland stated that this is the height. There is no difference between a 130' tall tower and a 150' tall tower. Holland stated to have a recognizably different appearance, the tower would have to be half this height.
McElhaney asked Day to explain why there are two different maps. Day stated there are two sets of propagation maps, one was prepared by Verizon as part of the applicant packet and is part of the justification booklet. An independent consultant prepared the other set of maps. There is a difference between the sets because the model used to generate the maps was different. The same thing could be said for a flood plain, and how you model that floodplain can produce a different boundary.
McElhaney asked which model or coverage area is correct. Day stated there is probably in the engineering field, some margin of error based on the modeling you are using. Both reports support the statement that Verizon makes that their coverage is not what they want it to be. Johnson stated the point is two models were used that come to the same conclusion. Day clarified, "generally" the same conclusion.
Holland stated Verizon spends millions of dollars on software capabilities and RF engineers, certifying and training them. The reason for the difference may be the different software programs. There are subtle differences in the way different carriers operate systems, and different antenna platforms from which they operate and angles antenna are pointed.
Jones stated he is really struggling with what the County owes. Since the last discussion, he's been doing a lot of reading and thinks the County d s not owe Verizon red coverage across the entire County and d sn't know if that's a
requirement of anybody. Jones stated that he thinks maybe what the County is required to permit is coverage so that people can get cell phone coverage from some provider. Jones asked what minimum tower locations can be done to get green in the white areas. Holland stated he agrees that people are not entitled to red across the County, and that doing that would probably cost more than it is worth. He stated Verizon is trying to enhance coverage in southern Douglas County.
Jones stated his concern is not with Verizon, but with the citizens of Douglas County. Jones stated he believes cell users have the right to coverage. If no one is providing adequate coverage, then Verizon has a much more compelling case in terms of demand. However, if someone else is providing adequate coverage, he feels the need of the citizens is met. Users may have to go to a different provider, but the need of the citizens would be met. Holland stated that the truth is, given the location of the existing towering structures in the area, he guesses that other carriers would like to have better coverage in this area. They may have not submitted an application for a number of reasons, including budgetary reasons. Holland stated he would be surprised if this tower d s not turn out to be a multi-carrier site.
Jones stated that a demand from other carriers and a multi-carrier site would be a compelling point. Jones stated he is troubled by something Holland said at the last hearing, when Jones asked, "Why don't the companies get together and come in with a sort of minimum towers needed to provide adequate coverage1/2" Holland answered the question that each system is different and there is no way for that type of coordination to occur, which means to Jones that everybody makes the argument that it has to have a tower too. Holland responded, that is not true, otherwise, Verizon would not be co-locating on all the other sites. In addition, the lower the tower height, the less opportunity to provide for co-location. If you increase the tower to 200', you get the most for your money. This proposal is a compromise for Verizon. Jones questioned why is it not feasible to get together with Cingular or other providers to decide if this is the most efficient tower to put up. Holland responded because antitrust issues may come into play when you start talking to your competitors. Jones asked how that can be true and also permit co-locating. Holland admitted that providers do discuss tower locations when they discuss co-locations.
Johnson stated the City of Lawrence has gone to a third party review. The County has not decided to make that move, but the County is interested and will watch the results from the City.
Daniel Fagan, Agalon Communications and contractor to Verizon, stated the previous map and understanding of coverage is best analogy. It is a prediction tool to predict where the most dropped calls will happen. The decision for third party review was a proactive decision to address any concerns the Board may have.
Raymond C. Trott, professional engineer with Trott Communications Group, stated the model he used is different from Verizon, having some minor differences in terrain and land features. He stated he was contracted to do an independent review of
Verizon coverage, which is slightly different from Verizon maps, but basically, it d s say that there will be coverage problems along Highway 56 without the requested site, with several dropped calls suspected. He stated originally a carrier would find the tallest tower in the area and give it the most power the FCC would allow. The cellular systems today are very sophisticated and site critical which sometimes makes it difficult to co-locate. Every carrier has his own system the way it is designed and can not always utilize a different site.
Johnson questioned what information heard this evening is not accurate. Trott stated maybe not everything was right on, but it fits the requirements.
Johnson opened the meeting for public comment.
Shelly Schmidt, neighbor north of subject property, is opposed to the proposed tower. She stated she has had Verizon for 15 years, with five lines that always work. She would have changed providers if she were not satisfied. She stated she is opposed to the tower and is concerned it will affect her property value and make it difficult for her to sell her property.
Ronald Schneider, attorney for property owner Judy Masur, stated she supports the request. He stated he lives in Grant Township (north of Lawrence) and has personally gone through three carriers up there, with the expectation for better reception. Some days are better than other days. Also, he has tried to rely on cells for internet services, but it is not consistently reliable. He has personally experienced dropped calls, and they are a terrible inconvenience. He thinks there are public concerns here. He stated the Board's responsibility is not to Verizon or his particular client, but there is a public policy question here. He understands that there is a need for a tower at this location. He stated the proposed contract with Verizon that they are negotiating d s provide for multiple carriers.
Marshall Hoyt, 1223 N 200 Road, is opposed to the proposed tower. He stated landlines are not obsolete. He is opposed to the tower because its presence ruins the rural landscape. He stated he has used 911 and life flight and it works well. He d sn't appreciate using a fear factor to promote the tower. His cell coverage in the area is outstanding. He has a neighbor who lives 400 yards away who uses Verizon and has outstanding coverage. The tower would be an eyesore.
Donna Saile, 227 E 1250 Road, is opposed to the proposed tower. She lives just south of the subject property. She stated she believes the tower will affect property values-houses are not built around towers. She questions the need for another tower when there are already three in the area.
Judy Masur, 261 E 1250 Road, owner of property in question, stated she supports the need for another tower. She feels the tower will add to the surrounding property values. Cell coverage allows her to telecommunicate via computer internet connection, and her house security system is a cellular system. Landlines are long distance to every community without a "594" prefix and the cell coverage gives her other options to avoid long distance charges. She thinks the ability to telecommunicate increases the marketability of property in this area.
Jason Nexter said he lives a long way from this area. He d s not have a cell phone and wouldn't have one if someone gave it to him, but he stated he has two cell towers close to his property with a flashing light and he got used to it and feels the towers do not affect his property value.
Jim Mullins, Lawrence resident, stated that as a traveling salesman he uses cell phones a lot. He has Cingular and experienced three dropped phone calls today between Topeka and Manhattan. He has experienced dropped calls between Lawrence and Ottawa. He stated support for the tower.
Jones moved to close the public comment. McElhaney seconded and the motion carried 3-0.
Johnson stated he was in favor of the tower and voted for the last application submitted by the applicant because he felt the applicant met the code requirements. He said this is exactly the same situation as the applicant's last tower application, with a different location and a different set of faces. Johnson stated he believes that the applicant has met all the requirements for the placement of the tower conditions and he d s not see any basis for denial. He understands the arguments from the surrounding property owners, but stated if we are going to have regulations and create standards, and hold people to these standards, then when the regulations are met, we are obligated to support them.
McElhaney stated it needs to be noted it was asked of the applicant at the prior Board meeting that if a revised location was brought forward, various criteria had to be met by this bench and further studies had to be done. The applicant has made great strides with the requests from this Commission. McElhaney noted that the applicant has twice been approved by the Planning Commission and twice Staff has recommended approval to the Commission. He feels the Board can approve on a 10-year CUP with a 5-year review with conditions the same as has been forwarded to the Board, but with an amendment to Condition No. 3 discussed earlier. He will vote for approval based on new information submitted with this application.
Jones stated he wants to make a correction as reflected in the minutes. One of the Planning Commissioners asked Staff why the Board did not vote for the prior application and Staff apparently answered that there are those who are opposed to it. Jones stated a much more accurate interpretation is in the minutes where we talk about co-location possibilities. Jones said he thinks we need to have an adequate number of cell towers to provide basic services, but d sn't really consider internet and other things basic services. He also stated if the Board is going to set a standard that everybody should have perfectly accessible connections to support their computers and other things, he thinks we're talking about many, many more towers than we've ever anticipated. We'd need to have red basically across the entire County. Maybe we're not there yet, but that's a lot bigger bite then he feels comfortable taking. He noted specifically in comparing the two propagation maps, the one provided by the client and then the one provided by Mr. Trott, that there is a significant difference. If you take a look at them side by side, you will see that the coverage on the Trott map appears to be, especially in terms of the yellow, the second tier coverage, a much broader footprint then what is indicated in the applicant's map. And there are very few areas of white on the Trott coverage map within the footprint that has been sited by the applicant. He believes the Trott propagation map indicates that there is adequate coverage. He d sn't agree with the point that if an applicant meets whatever the literal requirements are then that means it has the right to build a tower. If that was the case, then we'd never have public hearings and the public's opinion wouldn't matter-there would be no need for a CUP, it would be automatic. The fact of the matter is there's always two sides to the coin, there's always the need to balance the interests of the community with the interests of Verizon. And in this instance, he d s think there is clearly some adverse impact, in terms of at least the aesthetics. His goal has always and consistently been to have the fewest number of towers to achieve adequate coverage. He finds it very frustrating when Verizon or any other company steps forward and says they can't possibly coordinate the location of towers in that fashion, and can't do it in an advance sort of setting where we would sit down with a map and draw the minimum number of towers to provide adequate coverage and then go from that basic plan, as opposed to having a company come in and say, "We want to build a tower and we're pretty sure everyone else is going to jump on." Maybe they are and maybe they aren't. But that's not really planning and d sn't achieve the goal of having the fewest number of towers to provide adequate coverage.
He stated he is going to vote against the application based on statements above. The other map (the Trott propagation study) suggests coverage is not as bad as the applicant's map seems to indicate. Also, he thinks a tower at this location is inconsistent and incompatible with the other uses in the area. He is persuaded that they've got yellow, and they want red, and he is not convinced that red in this area is what they are entitled or what society owes to them.
Jones stated the industry keeps coming to the County and saying, "You have to give us this." He suggested the providers need to come in as a group and tell the County what they need and what brings the maximum amount of coverage with the least amount of towers, and then he would agree. But for each company to come to advocate its own position is creating a scenario that is adverse to the public.
Johnson questioned if that is realistic. He stated we are then saying Douglas County could decide through its own planning and issues how many towers there should be and the level of coverage there should be. He d s not believe the Board would have the will of the community to do those things, even if the Board legally could. Johnson stated, if the Board sets the standards and the applicant meets the standard, he d s not feel you can vote against them.
Jones stated there were a number of Planning Commissioners that expressed apprehension and he d s not think staff framed the issues very well. There are also other issues. He stated that we have talked about having a third party review look at this in the past. In this instance a third party has reviewed and the maps look significantly different.
Johnson stated the expert supported the request from Verizon. Jones responded that the expert only said that there would be a few dropped phone calls without the tower.
Holland requested the item be voted out. Jones suggested that if Verizon brings the item back to the Board with a commitment from other cell companies to co-locate, he would support the application.
Johnson moved to approve CUP 03-05-07 Conditional Use Permit for a Verizon Wireless communications tower for a 10 year period with a 5-year review, with the conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission and an amendment to Condition No. 3 as recommended by Planning Staff. The motion was seconded by McElhaney. Jones voted in opposition. The vote was 2-1. Therefore, CUP 03-05-07 was not approved based on a valid protest petition requiring a 3/4 vote of the Board (i.e. a unanimous vote).
PUBLIC WORK 05-16-07
Cody Bryant, advisory committee, brought questions on the following items to the Board regarding the Hesper Charter Road Improvement District:
1. A request to post a sign to prohibit commercial truck traffic;
2. An expense sheet for maintenance and upkeep;
3. Condition of road where pot holes have developed.
Johnson stated he is not prepared to address these issues tonight. The information will be given to Keith Browning, Director of Public Works for review and he will bring to back the Board for discussion. McElhaney asked for the previous traffic count. Jones asked how soon Browning could respond to the issues. Browning stated he could respond quickly, acknowledging some patching is needed. No action was taken.
PUBLIC WORKS 05-16-07
The Board discussed the treatment of vegetation in the southwest arm of Lone Star Lake. Keith Browning, Director of Public Works, was present for the discussion. Browning stated he did not know why the weed is growing, but last year's treatment was effective.
Jones asked how many treatments were provided last year. Browning stated just one. Mike Perkins, Operations Division Manager for Douglas County Public Works, stated the curly leaf pondweed is a cool weather plant that wilts when the weather turns warmer. Jones asked how many docks it affects. Perkins stated 50-60 percent. Jones asked if the Department of Wildlife and Parks recommended Aquathol K and what is its impact on fish. Perkins stated if we wanted to take care of the problem immediately, Wildlife and Parks recommended using Aquathol K. The amount the County used to spray and the dilution from the lake will have no affect on the fish. It was advised to not swim for 24 hours or eat fish for three days. Jones asked if there was any evidence of dead fish. Perkins stated "no."
Johnson opened for public comment.
Clair L. Kyszmaul, President of Lone Star Lake Association, stated he is not opposed to proper chemical treatment of the lake. He stated he d s not see the weeds dying away during hot weather. There are approximately 80 lots, 40 owners and 30 docks. He stated there are other members of the association in the audience that support the treatment.
Jerry Morton, 3121 Lance Court, Lawrence, and Lone Star Lake cabin owner, stated no one in the Lone Star Lake Association is opposed to the treatment. The fishing and boating was better after the treatment.
A Lone Star resident stated his support of the treatment. Last year the weeds were much worse. The weed problem was so bad he could not maneuver a boat. The weeds were so bad you can't fish from the shoreline.
Pat Kehde, resident, stated her husband is a professional fisherman for 35 years. She brought in samples of the weeds. She stated concerns that long-term herbicide use could poison the lake.
Perkins stated the weed problem starts in May and runs about six weeks.
Bill Shultize, resident, addressed the vegetation problem and stated you cannot fish from the shoreline. He also stated concerns that prolonged vegetation will lead to death of fish and suggested proper maintenance for entire the lake.
McElhaney moved to close the public comment; Jones seconded and the motion carried 3-0.
Jones stated he didn't see an alternative but to treat the vegetation. He suggested a shared cost with the lake association and stated the long term seems to be a bigger problem.
McElhaney agreed a treatment is necessary and suggested a $25 fee be added to the lot owners.
Craig Weinaug, County Administrator, suggested the County pay for this year, and for the Lake Association to work out a fee for members for next year.
Jones moved to approve the treatment to spray the vegetation in the southwest arm of Lone Star Lake, but with the understanding, a payment plan will be worked out for next year with the Lone Star Lake Association. McElhaney seconded the motion and it carried 3-0.
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 05-16-07
Jones moved to approve payroll in the amount of $659,116.32 paid on 05/14/07; and manual checks in the amounts of $220.00 paid on 05/07/07 and $300.00 paid on 05/16/07. The motion was seconded by McElhaney and carried unanimously.
McElhaney moved to adjourn; Johnson seconded and the motion carried.
_____________________________ ________________________
Bob Johnson, Chairman Jere McElhaney, Vice Chair
ATTEST:
_____________________________ _________________________
Jamie Shew, County Clerk Charles Jones, Member
Time and Date