Laserfiche WebLink
<br />SP-67 <br /> <br />-/- <br /> <br />Some question arose at the Planning Commission meeting in <br />regard to the location of the tower. As a result of the Planning <br />Commission suggestion, we have looked at other possible locations <br />and have found one that seems to meet the necessary requirements. <br />This location would put the tower behind the building so that its <br />base was not visible from the street. It is in a location where <br />it should not interfer with the maneuvering of equipment and <br />there is an electiical outlet for the radio equipment present <br />on the inside of the building in the same location. It is our <br />feeling that this location is as good and, in fact, probably <br />better than the previous suggestion. The tower will, with the <br />new location, be located inside the fence and will have improved <br />security as a result. <br /> <br />We have processed this item as a special use permit because <br />of the fact that the tower does exceed the 40 foot height limit <br />for industrial districts. While this is a discretionary matter <br />on the Administration's part. according to Section 10-140(a) <br />of the Zoning Code, we felt that the fact that such permits had <br />been required in other instances of towers, or other structures <br />exceeding the height limitations places a moral obligation on us <br />to follow the same procedure. There are other radio towers in <br />the City that are similar in height and they appear to us to be <br />relatively unobstrusive. MacLeans Trucking is one such business <br />having a tower of this type. <br /> <br />planninq Commission Consideration 1-20-76: <br /> <br />The Building and Planning Coordinator reviewed his comments. <br /> <br />Partyka stated that he felt the tower should be located <br />behind the building because its location out front detracts from <br />the building. If located in the rear, the building would screen <br />part of the tower. <br /> <br />Fredrickson stated that she feels a site plan should have been <br />presented and wondered why the item had been sent to the Planning <br />Commission for review if it was all ready set to go out for bids. <br /> <br />Planninq Commission Recommendation 1-20-76: <br /> <br />Motion by Partyka, seconded by Anderson, to recommend approval <br />of SP-67 providing that the tower be relocated to the northeast <br />of the building for aesthetic reasons. <br />