My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-26-97 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1997
>
11-26-97 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 4:59:00 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:58:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />NOVEMBER 26, 1997 <br />that in discussing this matter with NSP, they were informed that NSP <br />would not encourage a lot of screening of the utility buildings since they <br />will need access to their poles. <br />The City Planner reported that in residential areas it is the screenin~ of the <br />utility buildings which is the primary issue of concern. In addition to <br />screenin~ with shrubs or other low-~rowing planting materials, the City <br />may wish to require that the utility buildin~s are constructed in such a way <br />as to appear to be a typical residential shed. The Planner noted that <br />screenin~ of 8 to 10 feet in hei~ht should accomplish what the City <br />wishes. The Planner felt the screen could be handled in such a way as to <br />not impede access to the poles. The Planner pointed out that this is one of <br />the reasons he is recommendin~ the Conditional Use Permit process so <br />that each situation can be reviewed on an individual basis. <br />Fahey pointed out that the proposed text amendment says that if the utility <br />stiucture is not located within the footprint of the pole, then it must be <br />screened. If the shed is outside the footprint, screening would be required, <br />however, access to the pole should not be an issue. <br />Conlin reported that their agreement with NSP would be to have the utility <br />buildings within the footprint of the towers. Therefore, the screening issue <br />may be mute. <br />Pedersen asked if an antenna could be placed on a monopole structure. <br />Conlin replied that antennae are more structurally compatible with the <br />lattice towers. <br />There was no one else present from the general public wishing to <br />comment on this matter. <br />Upon motion by Morelan, seconded by LaValle, the public hearing was <br />closed. <br />Mr. Morelan introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: <br />ORDINANCE NO. 468 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION <br />902. 010 AND 903.140 OF THE LITTLE CANADA CITY CODE, <br />KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, 13Y PROVIDING FOR <br />THE PI.ACEMENT OF COMMERCIAI. ANTENNAE AND <br />ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT 73UILDINGS ON EXISTING PU737.IC <br />UTILITYSTRUCTURES BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT <br />SU73JECT TO COMPI IANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.