01/14/1998 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board January 14, 1998 Page 10 Mr. Herr asked for a maximum number of providers per tower. Mr. Beck indicated possibly four, but typically three. He added that a 120 -foot antenna could not accommodate as many as three providers. Mr. Beck again cautioned the Board about making the ordinance too restrictive. Mr. Dunn asked whether or not AT &T currently uses any 120 -foot antennas. Mr. Beck replied yes, within central cities. In fact, he explained that 75- to 80 -foot antennas are relatively common, but are usually specifically for additional coverage to small, specific areas. Mr. Dunn asked Mr. Beck for his thoughts on a city such as Lino Lakes with few appropriate existing structures, suggesting that new towers might prevail. Mr. Beck responded that one of his primary concerns about the proposed ordinance is that "poles" are prohibited almost everywhere. He explained that wireless service is a capital - intensive business, and that service companies do not build towers unless they have to; existing structures are always preferable. Mr. Beck also pointed out that the phrase "intended primarily" explains the difference between a tower and a support structure. He then referred to specific areas of concern within the proposed ordinance; specifically, Subd. 15.B.1., B.9., and B.12. Subd. 15.B.1. refers to erection of antennas or towers on any nonconforming structure. Mr. Beck stated that, given the small number of existing structures in Lino Lakes, restricting use to "conforming" structures would eliminate a considerable number of possibilities. B.9 refers to construction of new towers to accommodate more than one antenna and to allow for rearranging and situating antennas at varying heights. Mr. Beck stated that in order to meet this standard poles would have to be higher than 75 feet. Mr. Beck's concern with B.12. was that the FAA should be responsible for regulating the placement of towers near airports. Chair Schaps raised the question of consideration for seaplane bases. Mr. Beck was not personally familiar with seaplane bases, but reiterated his suggestion that the FAA should regulate. Mr. Beck continued, expressing concern regarding Subd. 15.E.1., G.1.a.1), and G.1.b. With respect to 15.E.1., he again pointed out that co- location would be extremely difficult if not impossible with nonconforming structures being prohibited from use. Mr. Beck expressed concern that G.1.a.1) would require inappropriate placement of equipment housing with respect to the principal structure, and Mr. Brixius agrees that he would consider changing that requirement to allow for placement of equipment housing in compliance with permitted accessory use building setback requirements. Finally, Mr. Beck objected to G.1.b., which prohibits erection of new towers within rural, residential and business districts. Mr. Brixius agreed to amend that section to state "The erection of new personal wireless service towers within rural, residential and business zoning districts of the City is prohibited." • • •