SP-109 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. ._ R e.p 0 r t 83 - 2 3 Page' #3 C'~ 'ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) Enclosed is a letter from the City Attorney, dated December 27, 1982, regarding the need for preparation of an EAW. This letter indicates that an EAW is not automatically required. My opinion, based on this letter and review of the project is that there is not a significant environmental concern. Assuming that DNR does not feel a EAW should be prepared I do not feel the City should require the preparation of a EAW. MAINTENANCE PROGRAM In a meeting involving the applicant and City Building Inspector, it was agreed that for maintenance purposes the tower and facilities would be inspected on an annual basis by a third party qualified person chosen by the applicant, with costs being the responsibility of the applicant, with the City having the right to accept or reject the third party choice. An anti-climb device, suitable to the Building Inspector will also be provided. INTERFERENCE CONCERNS At the Planning Commission public hearing in December it was stated that there may be a slight interference in the vicinity of the tower, for a short distance. The applicant indicated they would provide their labor and would only charge for the cost of any filtering equipment that may be necessary. The cost for equipment was felt to be relatively small. If the applicant receives special permission to locate I do not feel New Brighton residents should be inconvenienced or subject to extra costs as a result of the tower construction. I feel compensation should be provided to all those impacted. The applicant, in our last meeting, indicated they would consider some appropriate language. Attached is a letter from the applicant received at the Planning Commission ,meeting on January 18, 1983 agreeing to this condition. GENERAL ANALYSIS My initial concerns for this application.. were its applicability to the flood plain ordinance; applicability to the regulations regarding tower/height exceptions; safety concerns; and impact on surrounding property. The applicant has taken great care in addressing their concerns. The application appears to satisfy our regulation regarding height exception and the information provided by the City Attorney, responds to the flood plain zoning issue. The structure has undergone extensive design analysis and the maintenance agreement responds to safety concerns. Responding to the above in an appropriate fashion in my opinion lessens the impact on surrounding property. Given the location and precautions taken I don't feel development of surrounding property will be unduly restricted. An additional concern raised was whether the tower should be painted or have strobe lights for the daytime. Concern was expressed at the Planning Commission meeting that the lights may be disruptive. Given that concern, I would suggest that the option used be that of the orange and white paint. In reviewing the plans we find that the Seminary has a lO-foot access easement over the northern 10 feet of the existing WAYL building property. This easement is adequate for maintenance and con- struction purposes.