Laserfiche WebLink
411 Mounds View Planning Commission December 18, 1996 <br /> Special Meeting Page 2 <br /> Chair Peterson asked the audience if they had any comments. Mr. Jaymes <br /> Littlejohn of Hessian, McKasy and Soderberg, indicated that he had a concern <br /> with Page 5, Subd. 2 A, regarding any building expansion matching the design and <br /> features of the existing accessory equipment building and the expansion having an <br /> interior wall to keep separate the competing providers equipment and having a <br /> separate building entrance for each provider's space. Mr. Littlejohn explained that <br /> he understands that the City would like everything to be clustered, but the buildings <br /> are going to be owned by more than one party and the problem that would be <br /> created would be that of a townhouse or condominium regarding maintenance and <br /> repair but without an association to repair it. He also had a concern with Page 8, <br /> Subd. 4, and why the City requires proof of insurance and considers it an <br /> administrative burden to track. He added that they have more than 1200 sites <br /> operational in 14 states. Discussion continued with the Planning Commission <br /> regarding these concerns. The Planning Commission directed Staff to work on the <br /> wording regarding how accessory buildings are handled with the objective to cluster <br /> them as much as possible, but recognize there are some logistical problems with <br /> sharing buildings and to allow alternatives. <br /> • Director Sheldon responded to Mr. Littlejohn's request regarding insurance and <br /> indicated that she felt the suggestion was a good one that in order to minimize <br /> paperwork that they be required to have insurance in place and if the City <br /> requested proof and they did not provide it, then they would be in violation. They <br /> would not have to send the City paperwork every year. The Planning Commission <br /> agreed with this suggestion. <br /> Mr. Littlejohn also had some concerns with the hold harmless statement <br /> contained in the ordinance. He thought it to be an overly restrictive provision and <br /> cited examples of a gas station where the tanks could explode wiping out a City <br /> block and of a shopping center where nearly thousands of residents shop weekly <br /> generating a much greater risk of injury or accident and asked whether the City <br /> required a hold harmless clause for these sites. Director Sheldon suggested that <br /> we contact the City Attorney for his opinion regarding the requirement of a hold <br /> harmless statement and if recommended by the attorney, the requirement could be <br /> deleted from the ordinance. <br /> Mr. Greg Korstad of Larkin, Hoffman, Daily and Lindgren, appeared on behalf of <br /> American Portable Telcomm. He informed the Commission that APT is one of the <br /> wireless PCS licensees that has recently received a license and is developing a <br /> system in the Metropolitan Twin Cities region. He indicated he wanted to address <br /> • height and co-location. He explained that because the technology his client uses is <br /> more sensitive to line-of-sight interference, they require taller antennas and <br />