05-13-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

understand that the level of discretion with Special Use Permits is limited, however the • Council has unlimited discretion with regard to the decision to be a landlord to such uses. League of Minnesota Cities Recommendation In July of 1996 the League provided area cities with model ordinances and suggested policies for regulation of wireless telecommunications towers. This was in response to the Federal Telecommunication Act of 1996. The League recommended that policies be adopted to ensure "the views of the city council on priorities to be considered in drafting personal communications services (PCS) antenna site leases for facilities to be located on land or structures which the city owns or controls". The memo prepared by the League is attached as well as a model policy on wireless towers. Also attached is the "outline of zoning regulations" the League prepared to aid cities is establishing code standards for regulation of such towers. What are other cities doing? City staff contacted the following area cities: St. Anthony, Arden Hills, Columbia Heights, Fridley, Roseville, and Mounds View. With the exception of the Cities of Fridley and Roseville, none of the cities have free-standing towers erected on public land such as parks. In most cases, this is simply because they have not been approached rather than an outright prohibition. City staff has compiled zoning standards for all these cities should the Council wish to review them. What is clear is that the standards in place for New Brighton are minimal when compared to these other communities. This may or may not be relevant should the Council wish to consider amendments to the Zoning Code, in terms of additional special use standards. Staff also contacted these cities to determine if additional policies are in place with regard to these structures being erected on public lands. A summary of this research and general code standards is attached. Formal or Informal Policies Many of the cities contacted had either informal or formal policies in place. In the instances where informal policies are in place, the Council typically approves the site location prior to any land use applications. Many of the cities contacted have formal policies in place, which essentially consists of extensive criteria made part of the code, such as: • Must prove co -location on an existing tower is not an option • May only erect a co -locatable tower • Require coverage maps or other technical information to exercise "good faith in collocating" • City may hire a 3`d party technical advisor at the expense of the applicant • Require a certain type of tower, like a monopole, stealth design, or camouflaging (bell tower, clock tower, flag pole, light pole, tree, etc.) • Must place free-standing towers within mature tree growth to the maximum extent possible and preservation of mature tree growth • Provisions for removal of inactive towers • • Topography of surrounding area, preservation of sight lines, not located in front yard • Locate near existing structures that serve as visual distractions, like high power transmission poles, billboards, etc. • Setbacks to residential dwellings and/or residential property boundaries C., Dann sand Sar gs.jgtmff skrop'<ell mwm policy w rksession memo (5-13-OB)dac