Agenda - Council - 01/25/2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Motion by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Nixt, to recommend that City Council adopt a positive findings of fact relating to Mr. Kveton's request for a conditional use permit for two dwellings on one parcel and approve Mr. Kveton's request for a conditional use permit based on the findings of fact. Further discussion: Commissioner Dempsey inquired if 177~ Avenue is marked as a dead-end and Mr. Kveton replied that it is. Commissioner Dempsey questioned the likelihood that 177t~ Avenue will be extended. Acting Community Development Director Frolik replied that any further subdivision would require an extension of the road. The Commission discussed at length possible fm'ure accesses to the site if developed. Motion Cra-tied. Voting Yes: Chairperson Anderson, Commissioner~ "ohnson, Nixt, Dex,xpsey, Jenson, and Wivoda. Voting No: None. Absent: K. ociscak. Case #2: Request for a Conditional Use Peimit for a Persona,. Communication Case of U.S. '. dost Wireless Chairpers .m Anderson closed 'Se regular, portion of the Planning Ce,. anission meeting aZ 7:30 p.m. in order to conduct the p-~lic hearing. Public 5:' .aying Chairman Anderson called thc rmblic hearing to ortner at 7:30 p.m. Presentofion Acting Community Development Coordinator Frolik stated that the City has received an application from U.S. West V~rireless to construct and operate a perscral communication service (PCS) tower at 17515 St. Francis Boulevard NW, Ramsey, which is rural residential parcel owned and occupied by John and Avis Gobernatz. The applicant is proposing to lease a 30' x 30' site on the 30-acre parcel for the construction and operation of a 180-foot monopole telephone tower. Equipment cabinets will be located in a 10' x 12' area on the south side of the tower base. There is some existing tree cover in the proposed vicinity of the tower base and the Applicant is not proposing to install security fencing or additional plantings for screening. City Code restricts tower heights in residential districts to 75 feet. It also states that City Council may increase the height if it is needed to accommodate a second use and the surrounding topography, structures, vegetation and other factors make the height limit for a complying tower impractical. The applicant has designed the proposed tower to accommodate three other users in addition to U.S. West, and they have stated that the height is necessary for seamless coverage and to reduce the number of towers it would take to provide that sarn.e seamless coverage with shorter towers. Citizen Input Planning Commission/January 4, 2000 Page 4 of 10 I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I ! I