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
QUESTION # 2 -- "BEST EFFORTS" VS. "GOOD FAITH"? <br />(Councilman Pomerance) <br />Wants explanation for why "best efforts" requirement was reduced to "good faith" <br />RFSPONSE; <br />In light of strong industry concerns over the "best efforts" standard, which implies every <br />possible action, staff recommends "good faith" as a standard of reasonableness. However, Council <br />may choose to restore the more restrictive language. <br />QUESTION #*"3. COSTS OF DISPUTE ARBITRATION? <br />(Councilman Pomerance) <br />Wants justification of language related to both parries paying to arbitrate disputes — he believes <br />this will work against future competitors. <br />RESPONSE; <br />The proposed -language is designed to give the City Manager the discretion to assess costs <br />against the responsible party, ij'responsibility can be established, or to both parties if responsibility <br />for costs is not clear. <br />QUESTION #41- — ROOF MOUNT DETAIL? <br />(Councilman Pomerance) <br />Wants more detail on roof mount requirements <br />R F,SPONSF• <br />Please see attached photos supplied by consultant Ann Closser (Attachment D.) <br />UESTION #; - RESPONSE TO BROWNSTEIN-HYATT LE-LTER? <br />(Council members Feinberg & Greenlee) <br />Want point by point analysis of why / why not accept the 5 points in the Brownstein -Hyatt letter <br />distributed to Council on 2-20-96. <br />RESPONSF• <br />1) ADD "STRUCTURES" <br />Staff does not recommend expanding the allowable sites to include "structures". This would <br />potentially open up use of City right-of-way given the unsettled status of state legislation concerning <br />municipal right-of-way authority. Also, staff believes that an adequate analysis of impacts from <br />"building" usage has been completed, adding "structures" would require significant additional <br />analysis of design and technical concerns. <br />2) CHANGE "SAME COLOR" TO "AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE" <br />This change has been ,made as per industry request. <br />3) ADD LANGUAGE TO ALLOW BASE STATIONS OFF THE ROOF <br />Current language does not prohibit installation of base stations inside the building or on the <br />ground adjacent to the building. <br />AGENDA ITEM # Page 3 <br />• <br />• <br />s <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.