Agenda - Council - 12/18/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I CASE REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AMATEUR RADIO TOWER; CASE OF HOWARD ROHS AND JAMES MONSON By: Zoning Administrator Sylvia Frolik Background: Mr. James Monson has signed a pumhase agreement with Howard Rohs for the property at 15705 Traprock Sm:et N.W. The purchase is contingent upon Mr. Monson obtaining a conditional use permit from the City to erect and maintain 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 would be whip-like, similar to that of a car antenna, and would extend up to 20 feet in length. A horizontal antenna consists of a boom type fixture attached to the top of the tower with antennae extending from it. The tower would be located 5 to 20 feet from the home in the rear yard. Mr. Monson has stated that the tower is proposed to be an all-aluminum, free- standing structure with stainless steel fittings that he inspects annually. The tower is proposed to be located approximately 8,1300 feet from the end of the runway at Gateway North Industrial Airport. At the present time, the City does not have any zoning regulations or airport safety zoning in place to establish height limits. However, Gateway North Industrial Airport is open to the public and is recognized as part of the National Airport Systems Plan and is therefore subject to FAA regulations. Mr. Monson has filed a Notice of Proposed Conswuction with FAA in the event the conditional use permit from the City is approved. The potential for interruption of electrical reception in the area is also of concern. Mr. Monson's radio tower will be subject to FCC licensing but such licensing does not guarantee the absence of electrical interference. When FCC receives a complaint of electrical interference, the radio operator is notified and provided a time frame in which to resolve the matter. Continued unresolved complaints jeopardizes the radio operators FCC license. In talking ~dth a representative of FCC, I did find that experience has shown that electrical interference is more likely when area residents possess electrical equipment of a lesser quality or equipment that is improperly maintained. Another concern would be that in the event of a collapse, the tower structure would collapse entirely on-site and not present a danger to neighboring property and structures. I did talk with William Cross of the FCC office in Washington, D.C. and he indicated that requiring a tower setback from property lines equal to 30% of the tower height is sufficient because it would be a rare case if a tower collapsed in intact versus in sections. William Cross also explained something else to me. It seems in the mid-80's, there was a lot of concern with regard to 'aesthetic' ordinances local units of governments were adopting that among other things, virtually prohibited amateur radio towers. The FCC was requested to make a declarato~, ruling. That ruling was released on September 19, 1985 (Docket PRB-1) and basically says that a local governing body must make a reasonable accommodation in determining how to regulate amateur antennas. These regulations must represent the minimum practical regulation to accomplish the local authorities legitimate purposes. Examples of le~tirnate purposes: placement, screening, and height based on health, safety or aesthetic considerations. Although not law, the courts generally give deference to rulings of Federal commissions. The follow4ng items are enclosed for your information: a) Site location map b) Site plan Tower Structure Plans