Laserfiche WebLink
Board of Adjustments Minutes <br /> June 23, 1998 <br /> Page 2 <br /> Ken Nielson of U S West Wireless, explained that in the 10- 15 years cellular towers <br /> • have been in existence, there is not one documented incident of a mono pole <br /> tower toppling over. He stated the towers are designed to bend near the top of <br /> the pole to offset wind resistance. The towers are set into the ground <br /> approximately 50 feet to further insure stability. Mr. Nielson indicated that during <br /> recent storms and tornadoes,water towers and antenna poles have remained <br /> standing. He explained it is estimated it would take a 200 m.p.h.wind to topple <br /> an antenna, in which case, the whole town would likely be leveled, as well. Mr. <br /> Nielson stated why co-location on the existing towers is not possible. He reviewed <br /> existing and proposed locations of US West Wireless antennas. Mr. Nielson <br /> indicated the industrial park is the most compatible location for antennas, but he <br /> did not feel the setback requirements are appropriate. Mr. Nielson felt the <br /> extensive setbacks limit the use of the property and would be a waste of industrial <br /> land. <br /> Commissioner Chambers questioned why cell phone users cannot get continuous <br /> coverage. Mr. Nielson explained that an antenna is needed every 5 to 7 miles for <br /> continuous coverage. <br /> Discussion followed regarding whether or not the setback requirements in the <br /> city's antenna overlay ordinance are appropriate. Scott Harlicker indicated the <br /> setbacks could be reconsidered. He explained that other cities vary in their <br /> setback requirements,with some cities only requiring that the tower meet the <br /> underlying use setbacks and others require a setback equal to the height of the <br /> tower,which is Elk River's requirement. <br /> COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON MOVED DENIAL OF THE REQUEST BY U S WEST <br /> WIRELESS FOR A VARIANCE TO THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, PUBLIC HEARING CASE <br /> NO. V 98-5, CITING THAT 4 OF THE 5 THE FINDINGS FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE <br /> CANNOT BE MET. COUNCILMEMBER COTE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION <br /> CARRIED 6-0. <br /> 6. Adjournment <br /> There being no further business, COMMISSIONER COTE MOVED TO ADJOURN THE <br /> MEETING. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION <br /> CARRIED 6-0. <br /> The meeting of the Elk River Board of Adjustments adjourned at 7:04 p.m. <br /> Respectfully submitted, <br /> 06164 <br /> Debbie Huebner <br /> Recording Secretary <br /> • <br />