12-04-1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Planning Case No. SP-001-96: Telecommunications Ordinance December 12, 1996 • Page 2 Accessory Buildings: Also in Section 1126.03, Subd. 2, the requirement for CUPs for accessory buildings in the PF and CRP districts was deleted. In a subsequent section of the ordinance, text was added that amends the PF and CRP districts to allow accessory equipment structures only when associated with a CWTS tower and/or antenna as a permitted accessory use. Also regarding accessory equipment structures, text was added to the co-location requirements section that addresses how new buildings would be treated in relation to existing buildings. Landscaping& Screening: Added to the ordinance is a section that makes explicit the landscaping and screening requirements. Basically, a tree-screen of evergreens and ornamental deciduous trees is required to be planted around the fence so that at least 50% of the accessory structure and/or tower base is screened from view. Because some sites may not need landscaping either because existing foliage is sufficient or because the site might be in the middle of an industrial site parking lot, the screening and landscaping requirement can be waived. Procedural Requirements: The other major change to the ordinance from its previous version is the addition of a list of submittal requirements for CUPs, similar to what had been listed under building permit requirements. Those requirements were moved under the CUP heading because the information would be needed in order to approve a CUP. If no CUP is required, then the same information would be required to be submitted with the building permit application. Also in • the procedural section, a clarification was made to the proof of insurance requirement and an abandoned tower clause was added. Co-location: We have removed the requirement for a"letter of intent" which would have required all new towers to allow for co-location. This change was primarily made due to legal considerations. The provision would not be workable anyway, because it was the Planning Commission's desire that an applicant have a signed leased agreement, or other such document, for the second user before they received the height bonus for co-location. If the applicant had a lease in hand, a letter of intent is not necessary. The other changes are minor and can be addressed during the Planning Commission meeting on December 18, 1996, if the Commissioners have any questions. N:\DATA\USERS\JIME\SHARE\TO WERMEM.PC3 •