1E, Zoning Code Amendment - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• If the antenna is not proposed for the water tower site, an independent RF engineering review would be needed to clearly demonstrate why the antenna is not proposed for the water tower sites • A building permit. In the case of the water tower sites, the applicant would need to come before the City Council for approval of a lease agreement, but a public hearing before the Planning Commission would not be required. The lease agreement can address all of the water tower provisions in the Code (Section 1325.09 Subd 8) without the need for a CUP. The administrative review process would reduce the amount of time it takes an applicant to find and install antennas. More importantly, this would incentivize the placement of antennas on existing towers instead of building new towers by streamlining the review process. The result would be in keeping with the goal of the Zoning Code to reduce the total number of towers required to be constructed in the City. The administrative review process for existing sites is common in other communities, including Shoreview, Roseville, and Minnetonka. If someone were to propose constructing a new antenna tower or placing an antenna on a building, a conditional use permit and public hearing would still be required along with the administrative review requirements. The height requirements within the code are also contrary to the purpose of reducing the number of towers necessary to provide suitable service. The Arden Tower and Reiling Towers are at heights of 640 feet and 240 feet, respectively. The City's Fernwood and Red Fox water tower sites are heights of 120 and 150 feet, respectively. Generally speaking the greater the height of the antenna, the greater the range, thus reducing the number of antennas that are necessary to accomplish the same level of service. Permitting antennas on existing towers at a height greater than 75 feet would better allow full utilization of the existing tower space. If the 1972 CUP is enforced in terms of the number of antennas originally approved, it is important to consider the potential repercussion of removing the antennas from the tower. If the City were to consider amending the 1972 CUP to allow additional antennas, what questions or concerns would the Council have? The need for suitable antenna sites is not going to go away. While older technologies are consolidating sites, the newer high speed services are requiring additional antennas. It is reasonable to except increasing demand from wireless internet and cellular services. Attach mPntc A — Reiling Tower Conditional Use Permit 72-024 B — Current Conditions of Reiling Tower C — Zoning Code Section 1325.09 D — Communications Towers and Water Towers Map City of Arden Hills City Council Work Session for December 21, 2009 IlMetro-inet.uslardenhillsiPlanninglPlanning Cases 12009109-023Reiling Tower Zoning and CUP Amendment (Pending) 112-21-09- Work Session - Memo - Antennas and Towers. doc Page 6 of 6