My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-03-1988 Planning Commission Agenda-Minutes
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
Commissions, Committees, and Boards
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
1980-2003
>
1988
>
08-03-1988 Planning Commission Agenda-Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/5/2024 12:12:44 AM
Creation date
8/30/2022 2:51:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE ARDEN HILLS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Wednesday, August 3, 1988, 7:30 p.m. - Village Hall <br /> CALL TO ORDER Pursuant to due call and notice thereof Chairman Robert <br /> • Curtis called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. <br /> ROLL CALL <br /> Present: Chairman Robert Curtis, Raymond McGraw, Calvin Meury, <br /> Dennis Probst and Barbara Piotrowski. Member Scott <br /> Petersen arrived at 7:35 p.m. <br /> Absent: Paul Malone, Peter Martin, Dorothy Zehm, Scott Carlson <br /> and Councilmember Jeanne Winiecki. <br /> Also Present: Planner John Bergly, Clerk Administrator Gary R. Berger <br /> and Deputy Clerk Catherine Iago. <br /> APPROVE MINUTES Probst moved, seconded by McGraw, that the Minutes of the <br /> July 6, 1988, Planning Commission Meeting be approved as <br /> submitted. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) <br /> CASE #88-25; SUP Chairman Curtis opened the Public Hearing at 7:30 p.m. <br /> SATELLITE DISH and Deputy Clerk Iago verified that the Notice of Hearing <br /> ANTENNA, 4201 NO. was published in the New Brighton Bulletin on July 20, <br /> LEXINGTON, CONTROL 1988, and mailed to affected property owners the same <br /> DATA CORPORATION date. <br /> Planner Bergly advised the applicant is requesting a SUP to allow installation of <br /> a satellite transmitting and receiving antenna on the roof of Building #2 in the <br /> Control Data Complex located west of Lexington Avenue. The "dish" is 1.8 meters <br /> (5.9 feet) in diameter and will be installed so the maximum height will be 7-1/2 <br /> feet above the roof. <br /> • Bergly explained that both Zoning Ordinance definitions of "Miscellaneous Tower" <br /> and "Electronic Tower" require a Special Use Permit in all zoning districts. He <br /> noted the staff had determined the more restrictive "Miscellaneous Towers" <br /> definition would apply to this case. <br /> The Planner stated the satellite antenna would be located near the center of the <br /> roof on Building #2; the building is approximately 280 feet square and the roof <br /> is at an elevation of 1,032 feet. The antenna will be fixed in one position with <br /> the capability of manually rotating the "dish" and re-fixing it at a more <br /> advantageous angle if future reception conditions warrant. <br /> Bergly noted the nearest homes to the west and northwest are over 1,400 feet from <br /> the proposed antenna and they would have limited exposure to the "dish". He also <br /> noted the proximity to water towers, broadcasting towers and mechanical <br /> equipment of the roofs of adjoining industrial buildings are unique conditions <br /> which justify the SUP. <br /> Member Probst questioned the Planner's recommendation to restrict to the height <br /> of the antenna to 8 ft. , rather than 7-1/2 ft. as stated previously in the report <br /> of 8-3-88. <br /> Bergly advised there may be a slight variation in the placement of the antenna on <br /> the roof of the building; restricting the height to 8 ft. would allow the <br /> applicant some flexibility when determining the most central location on the <br /> • roof. <br /> There was discussion relative to the possibility of radio or television <br /> interference in the area due to the antenna. <br /> William Schaefer, representing Contel, explained the frequencies utilized and <br /> advised it would be highly unlikely the antenna would cause any interference in <br /> the area. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.