CCP 09-08-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

C:4�'oved Motion by O'Brien, second by Howard to CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. S ayes, 1 nay. MOTION APPROVED. O'Keefe asked staff if the Federal Telecommunications Act (FTA) of 1996 states that cities must accommodate the towers and health considerations cannot be taken into account. Gundlach replied that the FTA does state that cities must accommodate cell towers and added that a city cannot deny a tower based on health impact, which has been tested in the Court system. Zisla asked if the act allows a city to deny a tower because it is not a pennitted use in a park. Gundlach replied that through the zoning code a city could deny towers in a residential zone, if they provided other locations throughout the City. Howard stated that a revised city ordinance could provide a clear-cut determination on where cell towers could be placed. He added that he would have like to see the other possible locations that this tower could be located and is disappointed that was not provided. Schiferl stated that the Commission needs direction from the Council on if they want cell towers on public lands. He also believes the Council should consider if they are willing to be a landlord if there is the possibility of health impacts for vulnerable citizens. He believes staff should be directed to research health studies to see if there are any impacts. Baker stated that each cell tower should be considered individually, since each situation is different. Motion by Baker, second by Zisla. TO RECOMMEND THAT THE COUNCIL ADOPT THE ATTACHED SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVING THE REQUEST AS SUBMITTED. Zisla stated there is several aspects of this application have not been addressed. O'Keefe suggested an amendment to the motion of hiring a third party, which would advise staff and Council on the most appropriate site for the tower. O'Brien stated that the aesthetics issue should have been addressed by the applicant. He added that since the neighborhood feels so strongly against this application he could not support it. Howard stated that he also could not support this application. Harrington stated that the applicant would agree to extend the 60 -day notice and would bring forward the information that the Commissioners are looking for. Baker stated the Commission would require an illustration of how the tower would look, a third party review, and Park and Recreation Commission comment on the application. Phillips stated that he would not vote for this application until an ordinance is developed to address cell towers on public land. Baker asked staff how long it would take to create an ordinance. Gundlach stated that there is not an opening with the Council to discuss a new cell tower ordinance for several months. O'Keefe AMENDED THE MOTION TO INCLUDE: THE CITY AT THE APPLICANT'S EXPENSE WOULD HIRE. A THIRD PARTY TO EVALUATE OTHER POSSIBLE SUITABLE SITES IN THE AREA. Gundlach stated that the City can not force the applicant to pay for a third party review, since it is not part of the code. Harrington replied that the applicant would provide a third . party review, which may take three weeks to prepare. Bujalski stated the FCC allows