CCP 06-25-2007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

award inquired to the limit of antennas that would be allowed on the water tower. Gundlach replied the zoning code does not specify the number of antennas that are allowed on the tower, but it does state that applicant has to show a need for any additional antennas. She added that the Public Works Director and City Engineer regulate how many antennas are allowed as part of the leas~ agreement between the wireless carrier and the City. Howard asked if the City could reject an application or does the City by law have to accept the antennas and equipment shelters. Gundlach replied that if the applicant meets the specific requirements of the special use permit, then the City would be legally obligated to grant the Special Use Permit. However, if the applicant was not able to provide evidence that an additional antenna are necessary for the specific location, there may be a basis's to reject the application. Baker inquired if the City would be required to lease a space on the tower. Gundlach replied the City would not be required to lease space to them, Fischer stated that Verizon Wireless normally will lease twelve antennas on a tower, however due to the structural limitations of the current site they have decided to only install eight antennas. Motion by O'Brien, Second by Schiferl to CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, 5 ayes, 0 nays. MOTION CARRIED. Motion by O'Keefe, second by Schiferl to Approval of SP2007-004. 5 ayes, 0 nays. MOTION CARRIED. eIDouncements and Updates Gundlach reported that staff will present to the Council three different scenarios to complete the Comprehensive Plan, Two options include a visioning process, one of which would be more extensive than the other. The third option would be more of a technical update that staff could do internally and would address only the mandatory updates outlined as part of the Met Council's Regional framework. Gundlach added that she has provided the Commission with copies of the current Comprehensive Plan and has highlighted potential areas to be updated, O'Brien asked if the Council has indicated a preference for any of the options. Gundlach replied that Council has not received the information yet and staff has not heard what sort of update the Council would like to do, Baker stated that he helped with the first Comprehensive Plan and the process was very detailed. He believes that this one should be more of a technical review and when it is complete then the Commission's would look at it. Gundlach stated that when the Comprehensive Plan is completed it is required to be available for review by the public for sixty days. During that time changes can be suggested and at the end of the sixty days the suggestion would go back before the Commission's and Council. O'Brien asked if staff could find out where the projected employment figures for 2030 came from. Gundlach replied that she will find out where those figures came from and will compare them to the figures from the City's consulting firm. Schiferl stated that he believes that the Comprehensive Plan update should have the community's involvement. He strongly recommends option two, which is the complete review of the goals and options for the City. Howard replied that he seconds Schiferl' s statement. He added that while the system statement shows the A,mmission the four areas that the Met Council requires the City to look at, there might be other areas in the ~ty that should be included in the Comprehensive Plan. He believes that some input should be added into the chicPage 2 of3