Laserfiche WebLink
Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Bawden, Commissioners Holland, Deemer, Jensen, <br />LaDue, Terry, and Thomd. Voting no: None. Absent: None. <br /> <br />Case #3 <br /> <br />Review Proposed Ordinance to Establish Regulations for Towers and <br />Antennas <br /> <br />Planning Intern Skoog reported that the City Council approved a 180-day moratorium, effective <br />January 6, 1997, on wireless personal communication service (PCS) antennas and towers. At the <br />last Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Alexander, from Larkin, Hoffman Daly and Lindgren law <br />firm, presented several concerns about the proposed ordinance to regulate PCS tower sites in the <br />City. The City has received a letter from the law firm that lists requested revisions. <br /> <br />Mr. Tom Alexander stated that he is acting on behalf of APT. <br /> <br />Section 9.15.04: Mr. Alexander requested that subparagraph Nos. (6) and (8) be removed. He <br />requested that the ordinance be as detailed as possible, so that it is clear what steps are necessary <br />to have a PCS tower site in Ramsey. He noted that in order to operate, the towers must be in <br />compliance with FCC regulations. <br /> <br />Zoning Administrator Frolik stated that condition Nos. (6) and (8) would be covered under a <br />Conditional Use Permit (CLIP). <br /> <br />Chairperson Bawden stated that sites not on City property should require a CUP. <br /> <br />Commissioner Deemer stated that if PCS antennas and towers are a permitted use, they can be <br />constructed without public notification. A CUP requires a public hearing, which he believes <br />should be required if not a permitted use. <br /> <br />Zoning Administrator Frolik stated that if all of the performance standards are met, a CUP may <br />not be necessary, and the City cannot deny accommodation under the FCC Telecommunications <br />Act of 1996. <br /> <br />Commissioner Deemer noted that multiple uses of a property are not permitted. <br /> <br />Commissioner Thorud expressed concern about who has authority to regulate and control the <br />sites. <br /> <br />Commissioner LaDue stated that if the City is party to an agreement, a CUP would not be <br />necessary. <br /> <br />Mr. Alexander agreed and stated that a CUP should not be required on City property, where the <br />facility is a permitted use. However, if PCS equipment is located on other property, a CUP would <br />make sense for City control. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/February 4, 1997 <br /> Page 10 of 15 <br /> <br /> <br />