Laserfiche WebLink
engineer. In Section 9.15.08 (Tower Setbacks) staff was directed to eliminate the word <br />"industrially" from the sentence so that the last portion of the sentence reads as follows: .... <br />provided that the site or rear property line abuts another non-residential zoned property and the <br />tower does not encroach upon any easements". <br /> <br />Mr. Skoog brought up 9.15.09 (Tower Height) for discussion and stated that in his review of the <br />ordinance, he would recommend that Item (a) (2) be changed to read as follows: "The <br />surrounding topography structures vegetation and other factors makes the height limit for a <br />complying tower impractical". Mr. Skoog noted that 9.15.09 (b) is a typo and should be <br />removed from the ordinance. He noted that Mr. Alexander has requested that there be a section <br />added to the ordinance that allows for replacing non-conforming towers that are 100% destroyed. <br />Mr. Skoog noted that the City Code says a threshold of 50% destroyed on non-conforming <br />structures and uses. <br /> <br />Commissioner Jensen stated that she feels that the replacement tower should be built to new <br />standards no matter how little it is damaged. <br /> <br />It was determined that language be added to the ordinance to only allow replacing or repairing <br />non-conforming towers when they are destroyed to no more than 50% of their replacement cost. <br /> <br />With regard to 9.15.17, the following changes were determined: the word "private" should be <br />moved to the beginning of the sentences and removed from where it appears prior to the word <br />"reception". The words "reception and transmission of" should be added prior to "radio signals". <br />The first sentence would then read: Private antennas designed for reception of television and <br />reception and transmission of radio signals ..... <br /> <br />Mr. Alexander referred to 9.15.04 (c) (2) (i) and stated that public parks of a sufficient scale and <br />character is too vague. His client would like to see something giving guidance to the Park <br />Commission or the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />The consensus of the Planning Commission was that the Park and Recreation Commission had <br />reviewed and accepted the proposed language and, therefore, it should stay as drafted. <br /> <br />Mr. Alexander then referred to 9.15.04 (e) and (f) which deal with lease termination and <br />reservation of right to deny for any reason the use of any or all City-owned property by any one <br />or all applicants. Mr. Alexander stated that he feels that the termination language has more to do <br />with the lease and should probably not be addressed in the ordinance and the item on reservation <br />of right - he's not so sure that the City Council can reserve the right to deny, for any reason, the <br />use of any or all City-owned property by any one or all applicants. He stated that his client is <br />cautious of language that implies the changing of Council can take their permit away from them. <br /> <br />Commissioner Deemer stated that he is in favor of retaining the language in the ordinance so that <br />Council can be sure that all permits issued adhere to the same terms. They also serve as <br />guidelines for Council to act on. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/Public Hearing/Tower/April 1, 1997 <br /> Page 3 of 4 <br /> <br /> <br />