My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
05/03/2000 Council Minutes
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
2000
>
05/03/2000 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/3/2015 2:28:34 PM
Creation date
2/3/2015 12:03:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
05/03/2000
Council Meeting Type
Work Session Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MAY 3, 2000 <br />Mr. Jim Stromen, Attorney, came forward and gave his background regarding his utility <br />work experience. He stated the City does have a Tower Ordinance. There is, however, a <br />strong need for towers within the Twin Cities. <br />The City Administrator inquired about the basis for a lawsuit filed by US West. <br />Mr. Stromen advised US West has been aggressive in the use of right-of-ways for towers. <br />US West has not yet filed a lawsuit but the issue has not yet been resolved. <br />Council Member O'Donnell inquired about the details relating to a 130 — 150' tower. <br />Staff advised that typically the footprint is 14 x 24. No guide wires are needed. <br />Council Member Carlson inquired about an application made by US West. Staff advised <br />an application has not yet been made. The company must provide the City with <br />information indicating water towers can not be used. <br />Acting Mayor Dahl inquired about the placement of other towers i 'laced. Staff <br />advised the ordinance states that the tower has to support 2-3 n de. e ding on the <br />height of the tower. Others could locate on the same tower <br />Staff reviewed the City's Tower. Ordinance in detail a ication for a tower <br />does not go through the usual public review pr <br />Acting Mayor Dahl inquired about the <br />Staff advised this is the first time <br />answered. <br />r amend the Tower Ordinance. <br />eing utilized so that cannot be <br />Mr. Stromen stated the 'i', a ld be amended to extend the 30 -day decision <br />deadline and to in , a• - th ' .lic review process. He stated the City almost has to see <br />how the ordinance, • e the City considers changing it. An agreement could be <br />made with US Wes : ve the 30 -day deadline because a rezone would take longer <br />than 30 days. <br />Council Member Carlson asked if Council should direct staff to amend the 30 -day <br />deadline. <br />Mr. Stromen advised he defer that question to the City Attorney. <br />Council Member O'Donnell asked if there are any other monopoles within the City and if <br />the City assumes liability. Staff advised this is the first monopole issue. US West is <br />responsible for the whole structure and liability. <br />Staff asked if Council wants to support a monopole at the old City Hall site or if they <br />should pursue other options. <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.