Laserfiche WebLink
t <br /> Planning&Zoning Board <br /> January 14, 1998 <br /> Page 11 <br /> As he previously explained, Mr. Beck again expressed concern over height and setback <br /> requirements expressed in 2.b.2)a) and b). Mr. Brixius acknowledged the apparent need <br /> for additional height, and agreed that the setback requirement should refer to accessory <br /> structures. <br /> Mr. Robinson suggested that additional tower height would result in an unacceptable <br /> degree of aesthetic intrusion, and that the setback provided by the proposed ordinance <br /> would alleviate that problem. Mr. Beck suggested that compliance with that standard <br /> would only make the towers more visible. <br /> Mr. Beck suggested that 2.b.3) is unnecessary, as operational equipment is generally <br /> housed within existing structures or a cabinet provided by the service company. He <br /> added that this provision prohibits flexibility with respect to design in the event new <br /> construction is required. <br /> Mr. Beck questioned the title of Subd. 15.G.3., and Mr. Brixius indicated that it should be <br /> corrected to read"Public/Semi-Public District Standards". He added that Subd.15.G.3.a. <br /> should be amended to read as follows: <br /> Antennas Located Upon An Existing Tower or <br /> Structure. Personal wireless service antennas as <br /> permitted secondary use may be located upon support <br /> structures or existing towers and shall require the <br /> processing of an administrative permit and shall comply <br /> with the following standards: <br /> Mr. Beck also disagreed with the requirement of Subd.15.G.3.b.2)b) regarding setback <br /> from the nearest property line being not less than the height of the antenna. Mr. Brixius <br /> clarified that this provision pertains to adjacent residential property. <br /> Dave Hagen of Sprint PCS addressed the Board, stating that he shares many of the same <br /> concerns expressed by Mr. Beck. He specified that districts where towers would be <br /> allowed appear to be very scarce, height limit should be increased to at least 170 feet, and <br /> that in the case of his company the cabinet in which operational equipment is housed is <br /> preferable to new building construction. <br /> Mr. Wessel agreed that Lino Lakes has unique qualities, and invited both Mr. Beck and <br /> Mr. Hagen to attend the EDAB meeting at 7:00 a.m. in City Hall on Thursday, February <br /> 5, 1998 in order to participate in further discussion of the issues. <br /> Mr. Dunn asked about the possibility of pictures and/or overlays to better demonstrate <br /> proposed tower/antenna and equipment storage location. Mr. Hagen indicated that this <br /> 'IIN service has been provided in the past. Mr. Brixius explained that he is in agreement with <br />