10-08-1990 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 8, 1990 ZONING FILE #1588 - US WEST NEW VECTOR GROUP CONTINUED Mr. Uban responded that the Planning Commission wanted US • West to explore alternate sites and they didn't feel it was compatible in a residential district. However, no specific health, safety or welfare issues were indicated. Callahan also stated that in the Planning Commission meeting the public service interpretation being given was not the correct interpretation. Ray Wells asked why the Highway Department would not be concerned about this structure being close to the highway. No answer was known. He also is concerned about the value of his property. City Administrator Bernhardson followed up with comments on the Planning Commission meeting and issue of. public service definition. Even if the tower were construed to be a public service structure, a conditional use permit would also be required in this zone for the intent. The test for this under Section 10.20,. Subdivisions 3 is that the antenna has to be "subordinate to and servicing the principal use or structure on the same lot ". It would be questionable that this antenna structure would be servicing the Church. A bigger issue may be the commercial nature of the tower. Since this is a residential zone compatible items are normally allowed under conditional use permits such as churches and day cares. There is service already available by a competing company. This is not in the same category as electrical, telephone, sewer or water lines to service that property. Acting Mayor Callahan agreed with a previous statement that despite the conversation, the applicant was not present in an attempt to threaten future litigation although there is no doubt that there is preparation for the eventuality that it may be necessary. The Council needs to be aware of this. The Council does not seem to favor the applicant, however the applicant is a reputable business entity and entitled to consideration as making a reasonable request. Callahan believes that the zoning ordinances would make it difficult, if not impossible, to grant the conditional use permit as they now stand. In the alternative, if some of the interpretations about this not being either an accessory structure or a principal structure but some other kind of structure are considered, then we have a situation ambiguously covered by the code. Considering the explanation of this being new technology since the zoning code was written, the commercial nature of the site chosen principally to be a competitor of the site at the Wayzata tower and because none of the landowners want it on their property, he advises that a 6 month moratorium be put in effect while consideration is given to the way this new and different entity should be regulated. Goetten stated that she feels this is something that should • be in an industrial commercial zone, not residential. Based on 25