My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC PACKET 10092001
StAnthony
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2001
>
CC PACKET 10092001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 7:53:57 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 7:53:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
29
SP Folder Name
CC PACKETS 2001-2004
SP Name
CC PACKET 10092001
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
66
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).
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 13 <br /> September 18, 2001 <br /> Page 4 <br /> • <br /> 1 Commissioner Thomas referred to Section 2, item B, Color and Architecture,and it's <br /> 2 inconsistency with Section 2, item C, regarding(Wireless Telecommunications Facility) WTFs <br /> 3 and camouflage. <br /> 4 The Commission clarified that the intent is that all WTFs should be concealed and camouflaged. <br /> 5 Chair Melsha stated that the outline captures the intent of the Commission and that it really only <br /> 6 needs to be cleaned up. <br /> 7 Commissioner Tillman restated her concern that a CUP may not be a great enough barrier for <br /> 8 areas outside of the TOD. Chair Melsha indicated that he understood her point, but stated that <br /> 9 they do not want to be too stringent on not wanting towers anywhere because the City needs <br /> 10 them. <br /> 11 Chair Melsha asked Mr. Smith if he was aware of City restrictions in relation to the CUP <br /> 12 standards. Mr. Smith stated he believed that there existed some language that discusses the <br /> 13 factors that the Planning Commission would consider when determining whether the standards <br /> 14 for a CUP were being met. Mr. Smith indicated that one of those standards was distance to <br /> 15 other residential structures. <br /> • <br /> 16 Mr. Smith indicated that he felt there were reasons for which the Commission could deny a <br /> 17 CUP request, and that it was rare that as decision was reversed if properly and reasonably <br /> 18 documented. <br /> 19 Chair Melsha indicated that members from the subcommittee would meet with Mr. Smith in the <br /> 20 near future to clean up the draft and further discuss some of the issues discussed this evening. <br /> 21 9.2 Point of Sale Ordinance Discussion. <br /> 22 Susan Henry stated that a subcommittee has met to discuss a draft from 1998 draft that did not <br /> 23 go forward to the City Council. She added that overall the subcommittee felt that it was a good <br /> 24 idea, and the proposed draft works pretty well. <br /> 25 Ms. Henry outlined what the subcommittee identified as important concepts and aspects of the <br /> 26 process. <br /> 27 Chair Melsha asked if a misdemeanor was a uniform penalty for not complying with the Point- <br /> 28 Of-Sale Ordinance. Ms. Henry stated it was in order to keep home-owners in cooperation. <br /> 29 Commissioner Steeves stated that the main difference between the St. Anthony and New Hope <br /> • 30 Point-Of-Sale evaluations was that the New Hope evaluation was more specific. <br /> 31 Commissioner Steeves asked if they could ascertain experience from other cities whether they <br /> 32 have other opportunities to rectify a situation before it becomes a misdemeanor. Commissioner <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.