12/04/90 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CASE #: 2 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AMATEUR RADIO TOWER; CASE OF HOWARD ROHS AND JAMES/MONSON By: Zoning Aaministrator Sylvia Fro~l~ Background: / Mr. James Monson has signed a purchase agreement with Howa~fd Rohs for the property at 15705 Traprock Street N.W. The purchase agreement is conting~flt upon Mr. Monson obtaining a conditional use permit from the City to erect and maintair)/a HAM radio tower on the subject property. The radio tower is proposed to be 80 feet in/height, to which either a vertical or horizontal type antenna is attached. A vertical antenna wotald be whip-like, similar to that of a car antenna, and would extend up to 20 feet in length. A hp/rizontal antenna consists of a boom type fixture attached to the top of the tower with antennae eX!ending from it. For the type of tower Mr. Monson is proposing, the boom would be limited to2}4 feet in width. The tower would be located 5 to 20 feet from the home, either to the east (rear yard) or to the south (side yard) and would be visible above the home and trees. ~ / Mr. Monson has stated that the tower is propo~d to be an all-aluminum structure with stainless steel fittings. Mr. Monson stated that he does}~spect the fittings annually. / The tower is proposed to be located apprg(ximately 8,000 feet from the end of the runway at Gateway North Industrial Airport. At t~ie present time, the City does not have any zoning regulations or airport safety zoning in pl~)eeto establish height limits. However, Gateway North Industrial Airport is open to the publics/nd is recognized as part of the National Airport Systems Plan and is therefore subject to FAA j/egulations. Mr. Monson has filed a Notice of Proposed Construction with FAA in the event tJ4e conditional use permit from the City is approved. FAA will respond with a determination as ,to whether or not the tower constitutes an obstruction. If the proposed tower does not exceed FA/A criteria, it is allowed to be constructed as proposed. If the tower proposed exceeds FAA it may be allowed for construction under certain conditions such as reduced height, marker li etc. In addition to the visibility of area. Mr. Monson's radio to~ guarantee the absence of elec~ that experience has shown electrical equipment of a les another concern is interruption of electrical reception in the will be sub ect to FCC licensing but such licensing does not In taltdng with a representative of FCC, I did find electrical interference is more likely when area residents possess quality or equipment that is improperly maintained. Another concern would that in the event of a collapse, the tower structure would collapse entirely on-site and not :esent a danger to neighboring property and structures. I did talk with William Cross of the office in Washington, D.C. and he indicated that requiring a tower setback from property ~es equal to 30% of the tower height is sufficient. William Cross also e llained something else to me. It seems in the mid-80's, there was a lot of concern with regard 'aesthetic' ordinances local units of governments were adopting that among other things, prohibited amateur radio towers. The FCC was requested to make a declaratory ruling, ruling was released on September 19, I985 (Docket PRB-1) and basically sa' accommodation in dete~nkn~ghow_to regulate amateur ttennas. These regulations must represent the~mSnimum practical regulation to huthofine-TClg~it~hi-6-~s-g~7.' Ex~iples of legitimate purposes: pTa~m~-fit, screening, and h{ .ght based on health, safety or aesthetic considerations. Although not law, the courts generally deference to rulings of Federal commissions.