02-26-97 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 26~ 1997 Runkel replied that if an antenna or tower is on public land, the City would have the lease to ensure the unused equipment is taken down. Morelan asked the estimated cost of removing a 150-foot monopole tower. Runkel did not know, but indicated the life expectancy of such a tower is 20 years. Runkel also pointed out there is salvage value for the tower materials, which helps to ensure that unused towers are removed. Morelan suggested an unused tower is no more of a nuisance than one which is being used. Therefore, he felt it would be difficult to declare an unused tower a nuisance. Pedersen pointed out the problem arises when there is an unused tower on a marginal, small piece of property. It may be that the property has little value which raises questions about assessing removal costs against such a piece of property. Runkel pointed out that typically towers are an accessory use. Scalze agreed that was typical, but not always the case. LaValle pointed out there may be cases where towers or antennas become obsolete within a few years and it may not be cost-effective for the vendor to remove the antenna or take down the tower. Runkel reported that technology is changing; however, felt it would be necessary for antennas to be above tree-top level. The City Attorney reported that the Statute which has been referred to is the hazardous building and structure statutes. This Statute requires the finding of a hazard before a structure can be deemed a public nuisance. The Attorney suggested at the time a permit is issued for an antenna or tower, the applicant could be required to sign an agreement that the tower or antenna would become a public nuisance at the time it becomes obsolete or unused. The Attorney pointed out that taking action under this Statute would result in assessment of costs against the property owner not the vendor. 7