Laserfiche WebLink
<br />*- ,~ -'" <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />. . I~' ... " ,~ <br /> <br />'NEW IIIIITII '~diH~~2 ~9r rne <br />..-- . -~ <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />~_.~- " <br /> <br />... <br />~ ,. o. "No. """ - <br />Serving New Brighton, Shorevieav, Arden Hills and Mounds View <br /> <br />VOLUME 25, NUMBER 8 New Brighton, Minnesota ...... 30~ a Copy THURS,. APRIL 30, 1981 <br />. <br /> <br />Radio and t-v tower r..trlctlons <br />draw discussion at code hearing <br /> <br />NEW BRIGHTON - Concern and <br />opposition regarding code restrictions <br />relating to radio and television towers and <br />antennas and a discussion regarding <br />suggestions for modifications dominated <br />the city council's opening session of a <br />hearing begun April 22 on the proposed <br />revision of the city code. <br />Tom Boudreau, 66tl23rd Avenue N.W., <br />whose request for a ham radio lower was <br />denied previously by the council, sub- <br />mitted an alternate proposal to Section 4- <br />600 of the zoning code which was <br />designated as Section 4-605 Radio and <br />Television Towers. Warren Watson, 1889 <br />29th Avenue N.W_, who wrote the alter- <br />nate, reviewed it with the council, saying <br />its intent was to give the applicant a <br />better understanding of what is required. <br />Going over the differences between &05 <br />and 600, Watson said that requirements <br />calling for such things as detailed <br />engineering drawings of proposed tower <br />construction and methods of installation, <br />structural analysis information rqarding <br />stress loading characteristics related to <br />an 80 mile per hour wind load, detailed <br />guy wiring, and information verifying <br />compliance with appropriate F.A.A. rules <br />and regulations were to make as safe as <br />possible the provision of Item C: <br />.. Application for. special use permit for <br />structures whose height above .ground <br />excet.'C.t the di!itancc between the structure <br />base and the nearest adjacent habitable <br />structures . . . " <br /> <br />Community Development Director <br />James Winkels said that but for <br />modifications proposed 605 and 600 were <br />much the same except for liOS's Item C. <br />Asked from the floor if 605 provisions <br />. meant ~t a tower could be any height as <br />long as It meets the 80 mph wind stan- <br />dard, Watson replied, "Yes." Wayne <br />l.e~erkuhn. planning commission <br />chaIrman, observed that if Hi05 were <br />appr~~ed, it would preclude spt.'Cial use <br />proVISIOns for ground mounted towers. <br />Mayor James Senden said the council <br />was concerned about tower distance from <br />va~ant lots which inevitably would be <br />bUilt uPo."' which is why property lines <br />were wrItten as the guiding factor in <br />.':ltcnna and tower distal'lC(!S. At the same <br />time, Senden said, the city can't go back <br />an~ make new requirements because an <br />adjacent property has Dt.>en built up - <br />another ~ for staying with the. <br />property hoe concept, he said. Watson <br />responded that "we could go with <br />Pf?perty. lines, thouch we would prefer <br />gomg WIth habitable structures." The <br />mayor express<<l disappointment that <br />proposal HIS bad "come in so late <br />ber.ause it has a number of things thai <br />could be worked into the ordinance." <br /> <br />A COUNCIL MOTION referred 4-605 to <br />the city staff and planning commission for <br />comme~t and report back, specifically <br />~ddr~mg the following items: 1) the <br />mc1uslOll of all types of antenna and <br />~ers; 2) the consideration or property <br />h~ . versus habitable structures; 3) <br />Wind-ICe: load reqWr'ements and other <br />appropnate UBC standards; and 4) the <br />