pf_02827 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Approval : Manager Approved: DATE: 2-20-96 ITEM NO: Agenda Section: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION/DIRECTION Item escription: Backa=round COMMUNICATION TOWERS - LAND USE REGULATION In the past year Roseville has become a target for communications towers companies. The highway corridors and the heavy concentration of users near these corridors and the regional shopping center create this demand. A communication tower is now used primarily for telecommunications such as cell phones, mobile radio phones, digital phones and computerized data transmission. These towers may range from 100 feet up to 250 feet in height and need to be located on I to 11/2 mile radius. In Roseville, our planning, engineering and finance staffhave been reviewing requests for permits. The City land use code allows towers to be constructed,to any height, but require the approval of the Building Official or an appeal to the City Council. Most recently this occurred at the site adjacent to the Roseville Water tower, wherein the applicant had originally proposed a tower further north, within clear view of the Twin Lakes redevelopment. Because these new communication towers are permitted anywhere within the city under the current code, it would be prudent to reconsider the city's land use regulation of such towers. For example, the permit to allow all towers (except City of Roseville controlled or owned "designated" tower sites - similar to the Burnsville Ordinance- where the tower would be considered a permitted land use) could be changed to a Conditional Use Permit and limited to specific zones such as business and industrial districts only. The strategy here would be to create a permitted "incentive" to place communications equipment on sites designated by the City with restrictive covenants or lease conditions, but without need for further permits and hearings. If tower proponents insisted upon other sites, the conditions (only through a conditional use permit) that could be written into the code include the following: 1) Height 2) Strength 3) Setback from residential districts, buildings, roads, other structures 4) Visual guidelines such as color, guy wires, support structure designs 5) Fencing and support services parking. It may also be valuable to redefine the term "essential services" which are currently permitted in any zoning district. Such towers could be misconstrued to be essential services. ST AFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Request the City Attorney to prepare a draft ordinance for review by the Council at the March work session.