My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-22-1997 Additions
>
City Council Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1997
>
01-22-1997 Additions
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/7/2013 1:15:01 PM
Creation date
3/7/2013 1:14:42 PM
Metadata
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
JAN -22 -1997 15:44 <br />NRC 612 595 983? P.03/03 <br />In the table, the Public Zoning District allows Commercial Antennas as "Accessory" uses. <br />Is the intent to allow such antennas without a CUP as long as they are accessory to <br />another use of the property? This might be clarified. With regard to the several listings of <br />"Conditional Use ", is it possible that someone might be able to put a parcel to use as a <br />tower site as a principal use by CUP, without another principal use on the property? If so, <br />a tower might be allowed either as a principal use or an accessory use. Often, Cities have <br />required towers to locate on parcels as accessory uses to other principal buildings only. <br />This is intended to avoid the Shoreview problem of land parcels being put to a non - taxable <br />land use. The City may wish to consider allowing towers as accessory (or °secondary") <br />uses only. <br />Section 903.140 C. <br />The Ordinance offers two (actually three) alternatives to establishing setbacks for new <br />towers. It may be helpful to define how a choice of applicable setback would be made. <br />Is one the default, or it Is up to the choice of the developer? This should be spelled out. <br />Section 903.140 D. <br />A reference to a certification by a °professional radio frequency engineer" would be helpful <br />in determining whether a particular proposed tower site is technically feasible or not. <br />Section 903.140 E. (1) <br />Same comment as in 903.140 D. <br />Section 903.140 E. (m) <br />The City currently has a monopole on Highway 36 painted light blue. Would this be an <br />acceptable color? <br />Section 903.140 E. (n) <br />I am not sure that I understand this requirement. It appears that private towers (which <br />would include amateur radio towers) are always conditional uses. Also, which conditions <br />are applicable under the CUP? <br />Section 903.140 G. <br />You may wish to include a requirement which mandates a reduction in tower height where <br />antennas are lowered in response to the addition of new cell sites. It Is our understanding <br />that when a new antenna is added to the grid, the existing antennas will be lowered to <br />reflect the smaller geographic area they are then required to cover. Thus, some of the <br />previous tower height would no longer be needed. <br />PAGE 8 <br />TOTAL P.03 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.