Laserfiche WebLink
. � . <br /> • he has never encountered a request for a utility letter. He stated that this tower is vitally <br /> important to the system. There would be a lightning rod which buries lightning into the grwnd. <br /> He noted that the pictures show cell towers adjacent to power stations. <br /> Mr. Shampine asked if any of the pictures referenced were located in Decatur. Mr.Mugler <br /> answered no, none of the pictures were taken in Decatur. <br /> Mr. Schiller asked if the tower could not be built at this location what is petitioner's Plan B and <br /> would more towers have to be built at alternate locations. Mr.Mugler stated that denial of this <br /> location would create a situation where more towers are needed. Mr.Schiller asked where those <br /> towers would be located in this instance. Mr.Mugler stated that he did not know but that <br /> Cingular had stated that if this tower were built there would be no need for other towers as it <br /> could serve AT&T,Nextel and others. Mr. Mugler stated that none of the local residents or <br /> business owners had shown up to object to the petition. He stated that the proposed location is <br /> the best possible place to accommodate the system. <br /> Mr. Shampine asked if the tower were approved and built,would the petitioner be required to <br /> give a certificate to the City not holding the City liable. Mrs.Morthland stated that could not be <br /> done. <br /> Mr. Clevenger stated that he was having difficulty understanding the clarification of how this <br /> was different from other requests for towers. He stated that there is a tower on South Shores <br /> Drive that could fall across a four lane highway, towers next to electrical substations and a tower <br /> at the airport. <br /> Mr. Krieger stated that not all applications for cell towers are the same as they are site specific. <br /> Under a Special Use Permit/Planned Unit Development, staff has the right and obligation to <br /> request the documentation that has been requested. Staff feels that the documentation submitted <br /> is incomplete. Mr. Krieger stated that the subject petition could be tabled or if the Plan <br /> Commission disagrees, action could be taken on the request. As Ms.Ahmed stated, a different <br /> site plan was received just two days ago. Mr.Krieger stated that an agreement could most likely <br /> be reached regarding the parking situation. It is not expected that all requirements of a Planned <br /> Unit Development would be submitted such as traffic and landscaping. It should not be assumed <br /> that the Railroad's lack of a response means a tacit approval. <br /> Mr. Smith stated that the railroad would assume liability in this situation and have no gain. Mr. <br /> Shampine stated that the petition was tabled last time in order for petitioner to obtain two <br /> documents. Mr. Krieger stated that the two deficiencies of the petition are of equal importance. <br /> Mr. Shampine stated that the parking could be worked out and petitioner has shown due <br /> diligence on their part in attempting to obtain the utility letters. Mr.Krieger stated that he is <br /> sympathetic to the petitioner's position but noted that although a development occurred <br /> elsewhere did not mean that it would be acceptable here. Mr.Krieger stated that it was the Plan <br /> Commission's decision whether or not to proceed. <br /> Mr. Schiller stated that he had spoken with a representative of the Railroad and she stated that the <br /> Railroad has responded all that they intend to -which is to not respond. <br />