Laserfiche WebLink
Memo to the Planning Commission Page 3 <br />February 4, 1997 <br /> <br />15. The tower, antennas and associated equipment, shall be adequately <br /> insured for against injury or property damage caused by structural <br /> failure of the tower or associated equipment. <br /> <br />16. <br /> <br />No part of the tower or antennas, nor any lines, cables or braces shall <br />at any time extend across or over any part of a right-of-way, public <br />street, or sidewalk. <br /> <br />17. <br /> <br />The tower shall not be illuminated except for illumination specifically <br />required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other authority. <br /> <br />Moratorium <br /> <br />The Commission could also consider a moratorium on new towers. The <br />moratorium could be drafted in such a way that co-location on existing <br />towers or replacement of existing towers would not be affected. A moratorium <br />would allow time to accomplish the following: <br /> <br />It would allow the City time to assess the impact of the PSC industry and <br />cellular towers on the City and develop a strategy to address any concerns <br />and issues that were identified. <br /> <br />· It would allow time to review the zoning code's requirements and <br /> regulations regarding antenna towers and amend it as needed. <br /> <br />It would allow time to have discussions with PCS venders that might be <br />planning to locate towers in the city and begin to come up with an overall <br />or long range plan for the placement of cellular towers within the city. <br /> <br />It would allow time to meet with Sherburne County, Wright County and <br />other municipalities in the region and develop a cooperative regional <br />strategy or plan to accommodate future requests for cellular tower <br />construction. <br /> <br />Denial <br /> <br />The Planning Commission could recommend denial of the request for a <br />rezoning to Antenna Overlay District based on a findings that: <br /> <br />The rezoning is not compatible with the surrounding land uses and <br />include specific supporting reasons as to why it is not compatible. <br /> <br />The applicant has not demonstrated that off site impacts such as <br />lighting, electrical interference and visual impacts will not be <br /> <br />s:\planning\scott\cu9626re.doc <br /> <br /> <br />