Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />JUNE 13, 1996 <br />DeLonais was concerned about the number of towers the <br />City could end up with. DeLonais suggested the lattice <br />towers would look like a bunch of oil derricks around <br />the City. <br />Green pointed out the City can require these towers be <br />located in industrial areas. <br />DeLonais asked if there was a minimum distance <br />requirement between towers. <br />Green replied that there was not. The only problem <br />would be with an AM radio transmitter. <br />Keis asked what basis the City had for denial of a <br />tower request. <br />The City Planner replied that the City would have to <br />have a clear public health, safety, or welfare issue in <br />order to deny the request. <br />Keis asked about the next tower request. <br />Green reported that the FCC awarded two licenses, <br />their's being one of them. <br />Carson expressed concern about radio companies seeking <br />tower locations. <br />Keis asked if the City could control the number and <br />size of towers. <br />The Planner pointed out there are two concerns the City <br />should address. Those are number of towers and <br />aesthetics. The Planner pointed out that in his report <br />he recommends the City require the most aesthetically <br />pleasing tower, which in his opinion is a monopole. <br />The Planner also recommended that antennas be required <br />to be grouped on towers. A condition of the CUP could <br />be that additional antennas will have to be located on <br />this tower and the City's water tower, if feasible. <br />Green pointed out that this is a double -edged sword <br />since a monopole tower could not support panel antennas <br />for two carriers. <br />Keis questioned the willingness of competitors to <br />negotiate a fair lease. <br />9 <br />Page 76 <br />