My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-24-1996
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
07-24-1996
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/27/2024 9:11:34 PM
Creation date
7/31/2018 11:10:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV City Council
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
7/24/1996
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
140
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
ATTACHMENT B <br />Gary Kretschmer addresses principal use and appurtenant use saying that there are different <br />standards with pertinence and separate standards established for principal uses. They are in <br />separate use categories altogether. He also states that the City has rigid height restrictions; <br />because of a vote of citizens 55ft is the maximum height in this community and the minimum of <br />pertinencies is above 55 ft. <br />What about non -conforming buildings that were built before the ordinance? <br />The ordinance specifically limits what we can do on those structures. That's why they wrote that <br />anything over 55ft would have to be wall mounted. It is doubtful that we can put structures on <br />pertinence or principle uses on the tops of those buildings. The City doesn't have the amount of <br />flexibility that they'd like. <br />Someone stated that the draft they've seen doesn't have that distinction. <br />Gary Kretschmer states that under design criteria in the draft ordinance there was a distinction <br />made. They made a distinction between 2 buildings that just require antennas on walls of all <br />structures and the previous ordinance did not distinguish. <br />Alan Boles says he would strongly prefer options of being able to put antennas on buildings nncIe;r <br />55 ft. <br />Ann Closser states that in the definitional section antenna needs clarification because typically a <br />PCS cell facility will have 3 sectors. <br />Richard Varnes wanted PCS Unit defined? Would a "base station" not include an antenna? <br />Ann Closser states that a telecommunications facility should have no more than so many sq. ft. <br />per facility. <br />Richard Varnes states that the City will rework the definition <br />Ann Closser stated that paging companies may be approaching the City for facilities. <br />Alan Boles notes in one of the pictures shown by Ann Closser that they have antennas mounted <br />on lightpoles and another picture where one is mounted on a light pole in a sports stadium. <br />Would they also want Boulder to allow them to mount antennas to poles or other structures such <br />as church steeples, water towers etc...? <br />Ann Closser stated that yes they are proposing the above. <br />Alan Boles asks if there are any other structures they are considering? <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.