06/28/1971 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

40 6/28/71 Mr. Jaworski inquired why the P&Z had recommended not rezoning to commercial. Mr. Memmer stated that he had received letters from both Mr. Locher and Mr. Van Housen that the tower could be constructed on residential property.. If you want rezoning, then everyone is up in arms over it; the Council would then have to consider what use would be made of the whole quarter section after the tower is removed. This way, the land would revert to present use. Mr. Memmer stated that he, would like to add one thing to the P&Z minutes, namely, that he had said conoerhing taxes that "the value would be set by the Lino Lakes Assessor." Mr. Jaworski inquired what effect the tower would have on future pesidential development. Mr. L'Allier noted that a good, portion of lowland was involved. Mr. Memmer stated that the Anoka tower, which this one would replace, had been surrounded by new housing building right up to the property and that they had to pay for street and sewer: assessments, etc.. Mr. L'Allier stated that the question had arisen as to what effect the tower would have on radio, TV, and ham radio reception. Mr. Memmer noted that in Shoreview there had been no letters received when they began broadcasting two weeks ago. Mr. Sherman noted that when you drive past the Anoka tower on Hsy 10, that you don't get WCCO if another station is tuned in. They also have other short -wave stations for emergency broadcasts which give no interference to amateurs using short -wave. He noted that he had received one call from a person who lives near the proposed tower. WCCO is glad to correct any troubles which may evolve from the tower. W. Sherman noted that the FCC limits the modulation and overlap into other frequencies. Mr. Rosengren inquired about maintenance of the 152 acres. Mi. Sherman noted that there are two circles of anchors, so that is one anchor line is broken, the tower snakes down on their own property; also, Midwest Radio - Television carries adequate, liability insurance. There would be cyclone fence surrounding the property; the road in would be gated. There would be no lawn area, but the land would be kept in its natural state- -the swamp grass would be cut if it gets too tall. ,They would not impair the ditch system; the land would remain a storm water receiver. Mr. Memmer noted that this parti- cular land probably would be the last to be developed. Mr. Memmer noted that Mr. Haeg was a member of the Hennepin County Park Board and was opposed to the Metro Park Reserve bill since it would take away our right to plan and would preempt all local planning; he feels that Metro government is the end of local government. Mr. L'Allier commended Mr. Memmer on this stand and noted that he had heard Mr. Memmer chastise the Metro Sewer Board at a hearing; he did a fine job. Mr. Memmer presented a proposed draft of the resolution granting the special use permit; this was read;. it would give Midwest unil July 1, 1975, to complete construction. Mr. Memmer noted that they would need 1 1/2 to 2 years fot the hearings alone. Mr. Cardinal asked whether Holly Drive would have to be upgraded for use,by the station. Mr. Sherman noted that after the construction, only two cars per eight hour shift would use the road per day. Mr. L'Allier noted that if the construction would exceed the road load limits that they would need a permit and must post a bond as set forth in the ordinances. This was no problem. Mr. L'Allier observed that a special use permit is for an indefinite period of time, that it continues until there is a violation. Mr. Memmer stated that they had given four years time so they wouldn't have to come back for a special use permit again. Mr. Locher stated that there was nothing wrong with the proposed resolution. Mr. L'Allier noted that it was the intent of the Council to issue a special use permit for the period of time needed to construct and use the equipment. There were no further 1