Laserfiche WebLink
Section 9.15.09. The firm requests that the 75 foot height limit apply only in <br />residential districts rather than in residential and commercial districts. Staff believes the <br />height limit in commercial districts should remain 75 feet. <br /> <br /> Section 9.15.10. The firm requests that the a phrase be added that will permit <br />tower lighting if required by the City Council for safety reasons. Staff is comfortable with <br />this request. <br /> <br /> Section 9.15.12. The f'mu requests that setbacks of accessory utility buildings be <br />determined based on compatibility with the actual placement of the tower rather than <br />meeting the setback requirements of the underlying zoning district. Staff believes that the <br />setbacks of the underlying zoning district should be adhered to. <br /> <br /> The firm requests that Section 9.15.13 (b) be eliminated. Staff believes it should <br />remain. <br /> <br /> Section 9.15.14. The firm requests that the placement of antennas on roofs, wails, <br />and existing towers should be approved by the City Engineer rather than the City Council. <br />Staff is comfortable with this request. <br /> <br /> The firm requests that a section be added to Section 9.15.14 that reads: "The <br />replacement of an existing light pole or lighting standard in order to accommodate the <br />placement of an antenna shall be approved by issuance of a building permit based upon <br />adminisu:ative review." Staff in not clear as to why the finn feels that this addition is <br />necessary. <br /> <br /> Section 9.15.15. The firm requests that since interference with public safety <br />telecommunications is regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), an <br />intermodulation study is not necessary and that this section be changed to reflect this <br />situation. Staff is comfortable with this request. <br /> <br /> Section 9.15.16 (a). The firm requests that parts (4) and (5) be deleted from this <br />section because of the aforementioned FCC regulations. Staff is comfortable with this <br />request. <br /> <br /> Section 9.15.16 (c) (1). The firm requests that the phrase "Proof that the proposed <br />tower complies with regulations" be changed to "Aff'mnation that the proposed tower will <br />comply with any applicable regulations." Staff is comfortable with this request. <br /> <br /> Section 9.15.16 (c) (2). The firm requests that the phrase "but not radio frequency" <br />be added so that radio frequency standards are not required to be shown in compliance by <br />an engineer. Staffdoes not believe that this phrase should be added. <br /> <br /> The firm believes that a section should be added that requires a conditional use <br />permit for the construction of a tower. Staff believes that this suggestion is acceptable. <br />The proposed ordinance already requires a conditional use permit for towers on City owned <br />property. However, language would have to be added to require conditional use permits <br />for towers on privately owned property. <br /> <br /> The finn believes that a section should be added that deals with existing antennas <br />and towers. Specifically, the section allows for the replacement of existing towers that are <br />damaged or destroyed due to any reason without complying with this Section. Staff does <br />not believe that this section should be added. <br /> <br /> <br />