Laserfiche WebLink
MINU IES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />NOVEMBER 13, 1997 <br />Conlin stated that she could not guarantee that antennae would be placed <br />on just one pole. <br />DeLonais pointed out that the City's tower ordinance requires that any <br />tower built have the capacity to carry additional antennae. <br />The City Planner replied that that is correct, and the tower on the Donovan <br />property was constructed to handle co- locations. However, the two <br />existing towers located along Highway 36 were in existence prior to <br />adoption of the tower ordinance, and may not have the capacity to support <br />co- locations. <br />Conlin reported that U.S. West has looked at one of the towers on <br />Highway 36 and it could not support a co- location. <br />Keis asked if the first conditional use permit granted for an antenna on a <br />transmission tower would set such a precedent that the City would have a <br />difficult time turning down additional requests. Keis indicated that his <br />concern was with the equipment buildings in residential areas. <br />The City Planner reported that each CUP request will have site specific <br />conditions, so approval of one CUP does not set a precedent for additional <br />requests. The protection is that every location will be different. <br />Carson felt that limiting the antennae to lattice towers would help. <br />Schletty felt the proposal made sense as an alternative to having numerous <br />additional towers built. Schletty suggested that perhaps at some point the <br />towers on Highway 36 will become obsolete and will go away. <br />Knudsen pointed out that lattice towers have the footprint referred to by <br />the City Planner in his report, and suggested that monopole towers were <br />not an issue. The Planner replied that that was correct. <br />Montour asked who would make application for the CUP, the property <br />owner or U.S. West. The Planner envisioned that the party who would <br />own the antennae would make application. However, evidence would be <br />required showing that the property owner supported the application. <br />Montour indicated he preferred one antenna per transmission tower versus <br />multiple carriers on a tower given the accompanying equipment buildings <br />that would be necessary. <br />Again, it was pointed out that the ordinance amendment provides for a <br />CUP process, so the City would review each application individually. <br />Page 38 <br />