CCP 07-22-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1Of 7r�yy�� the city that works for l r you Report Number Agenda Section Council Meeting Date REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION 08-207 VIII -1 July 22, 2008 ITEM DESCRIPTION: City of New Brighton requests consideration of an amendment to Zoning Code Sections 4-600 (2) and 4-600 (4) concerning required setbacks for telecommunication towers/antenna. DEPARTMENT HEAD'S APPROVAL: Grant Femelius, CITY MANAGER'S APPROVAL: No comments to supplement this 15.99 Deadline: Not aonlicable Director Recommendation: Adopt the attached ordiha e, amending Zoning Code Sections 4-600 (2) & (4) Legislative History: July 15, 2008: The Planning Commission considered the request and held a public hearing. No public testimony was received. The Commission recommended an additional condition under Section 4-600 (4) (D) that would require a fall zone letter stating that tower is engineered to fall in a distance not impeding traffic on I -35W. This condition has been incorporated into the attached Ordinance. Financial Impact: Not applicable Explanation: The City is requesting consideration of a Zoning Code Amendment impacting Section 4- 600 (2) and (4) concerning required setbacks for telecommunication towers/antenna. Specifically, the request would allow for a reduced setback of 10', rather than a setback based on tower height, when the tower is located in a side or rear yard abutting 1-35W in an industrial district. The City owns land within the Northwest Quadrant that contains a 125' AT&T cell tower. This tower is located on land that Ryan Companies has an option to purchase to construct a phase 2 building for Transoma Medical. In an effort to comply with the existing contract with Ryan Companies, the City must relocate the existing tower. The proposed code change is somewhat narrowly defined; the reduced setback to 10' only applies to parcels that are in an industrial district located along I -35W. Our analysis suggests that there roughly 18 sites within the city that meet this criteria, however the number is probably less because not all site could accommodate a tower. For all . other sites in the City the setback standard would unchanged (i.e. equal to height of tower). remain Lastly, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) was contacted. Staff explained the impact of the reduced setback and inquired if MnDOT had any concerns. The initial response was that the department probably didn't have any legal authority over the matter as there are already many structures, including cell towers, which under a catastrophic collapse could impede the traveled roadway. However, MnDOT agreed to get a formal response to City staff. At the drafting of this memo that formal response had not yet been received, but staff will provide an update at the Council meeting.