My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-22-1989 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1989
>
03-22-1989 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/26/2013 12:03:48 PM
Creation date
6/26/2013 12:01:07 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
96
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 />Planning Commission <br />March 9, 1989 <br />KVBM Mr. Peters indicated that the City currently has the impact <br />Television of nearby towers, but does not receive any revenues from <br />Tower them. Mr. Bendel stated that there is a large trailer court <br />(cont.) in that area, and that Little Canada is predominantly a <br />residential City. Mr. Bendel felt that it was important to <br />consider this. Mr. Davison indicated that in the case of <br />the trailer court, there would be 200 homes in the shadow of <br />the tower, and he cannot see how these homes would not be <br />affected by the tower. <br />Mr. Pedersen asked if there would be a problem with falling <br />ice from the tower as in Shoreview. Mr. McGinnis stated <br />that the towers in Shoreview have wiring from which ice <br />falls. Mr. McGinnis believed that the falling ice from the <br />proposed tower would not be any different from that of a <br />building downtown. <br />Mr. Costa asked if they were turned down in other cities for <br />this request. Mr. Peters stated that the previous owner of <br />this license was turned down in Oakdale about a year ago. <br />Mr. DeLonais felt that the site was too high, and had his <br />doubts on the land of the proposed site. Mr. DeLonais felt <br />the land could not support the tower regardless of how big <br />the pads were, and he indicated that he would want to see <br />another engineer's report in addition to that of <br />Mr. Carley's. Mr. McGinnis indicated that he realized that <br />Mr. Carley's report was a preliminary report. <br />Mr. Pedersen asked what the minimum height for the tower <br />could be. Mr. McGinnis stated 150'; however, they could not <br />cover as many cities and would not receive as much revenue. <br />Mr. Pedersen felt that a 1,200 foot tower would dominate the <br />area. <br />Mr. Herkenhoff asked if the tower could be well over 1,200 <br />feet. Mr. McGinnis replied no not unless it was <br />intentionally built that way. Mr. Herkenhoff asked if the <br />1,200 feet was a minimum for the tower height. Mr. Peters <br />stated that it would be economically feasible to build the <br />tower around 1,150 feet; therefore, they would like to keep <br />their proposed feet at 1,200 feet. Mr. McGinnis indicated <br />that there would be at, least one elevator in the tower. <br />Page 10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.