Laserfiche WebLink
Memo to the Planning Commission Page 3 <br /> February 4, 1997 <br /> III <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 /> 16. 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 /> 17. The tower shall not be illuminated except for illumination specifically <br /> required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other authority. <br /> Moratorium <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 /> • 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 /> • • It would allow time to review the zoning code's requirements and <br /> regulations regarding antenna towers and amend it as needed. <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 /> • 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 /> Denial <br /> The Planning Commission could recommend denial of the request for a <br /> rezoning to Antenna Overlay District based on a findings that: <br /> 1. The rezoning is not compatible with the surrounding land uses and <br /> include specific supporting reasons as to why it is not compatible. <br /> 2. The applicant has not demonstrated that off site impacts such as <br /> • lighting, electrical interference and visual impacts will not be <br /> s:\planning\s cott\cu9626re.doc <br />