My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1996 Planning Commission Packets
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
1996 Planning Commission Packets
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/23/2012 12:29:23 PM
Creation date
2/23/2012 11:56:41 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
477
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<: : <br />_. <br />.. <br />Item #8 <br />� �.. �; ;� <br />1�/ � � <br />To: Mounds View Planning Commission <br />From: James Ericson, Planning Associate <br />Subject: Commercial Wireless Telecommunications Towers and Antennae <br />Planning Case No. SP-001-96 <br />Date: l�dovemher 27, 1996 <br />Meeting of December 4, 1996 <br />Issue <br />On August 12, 1996, the City Council approved a six monih (180 day} moratorium on the new <br />use, development or construction of wireless telecammunicafions services (Ordinance No. 587) <br />within the City. This mocatoriutn is set to expire on March 8, 1997. The 1'lanning Commission <br />\',� held a special session on October 23, 1996 to discuss this topic at whieh tneeting industry <br />representatives were present to give short presentations and to answer ques�ions. <br />Recommendation <br />StafF recommends that the Planning Commission review the attached draft of the Commercia# <br />Wireless Telecommunications Towers and Antennae ordinance and make suggestions and or <br />comments as to its content and provisions. In addition, staff has provided a shor� summary of the <br />ordinance which answers the Iist of questions developed by staff for your September I2, 1996 <br />meeting (list attached.) <br />Analvsis <br />Because there is c�arrently a moratorium in effect, some e�ra thought needs to be given to the <br />process and time frame by which tYus ordinance gets approved. If approval of'this proposed <br />ordinance (or some later 'steration) is desired prior to the expiration of the moratorium, sta�will <br />need to draft a separate resolutior� to repeal the moratorium. I� the prevailing thought is to let the <br />moratorium expire on its own accord (March 8, 1997), the proposed ordi�ance to replace it must <br />be timed so it is approved by the City Cauncil no later than the second Nlonday in January <br />(7anuary 13, 1997). This will allow sufficient time for the adopied ordinance to be published in <br />fhe r�ewspaper and the required 30 day period before the ordinance is effective. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.