04-18-1994 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ir Zoning File #1913 April 13. 1994 Page 2 G - Elevation Tower/Antenna H - Amateur License I - Article entitled "Antennii Height and Communications Effectiveness" J - Specifications-Universal Towers K - Neighbors ’ Petition of Approval L - Appeals Before United States Coun of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Description of Request Applicant has installed an independent tower/antenna structure at a total 85’ height without the benefit of a building peniiil ami the required conditional use permit. The antenna, tower and base was installed by applicant. The struemre was observed by the inspectors some time in October of 1993. Applicant was advised of the need to apply for a conditional use permit. Review Exhibit E. It is applicant’s first choice to have the existing structure approved at a 32’ setback requiring a setback variance. A copy of applicant’s amateur radio license has been submitted confirming the use is solely for private and hobby use. Applicant resides in residence on property as required by ordinance The use is subordinate to or accessory to the principal residential use. The property is owned bv Whitney MacMillan and Mr. MacMillan has signed the application. Review Exhibits D and L. The property to the immediate east is owned by David MacMillan. Please note, the petition has not been signed by David MacMillan. It is Mr. MacMillan ’s property to the immediate east that receives the most impact as structure would be IcKated 32’ from his lot line. The applicant has submitted an auoezjdum and photos depicting the antenna from various adjacent elevations. Clearly this is not a question of visual or aestlietic impacts upon adjacent properties, but for the City this is a matter oi ;'«‘'^tection of private property. The setback is established so that if the struemre was to collapse it would result in no physical damage to the adjacent property or structures on that property. If the City is to approve a conditional use permit for applicant, the struemre would have to be relocated to meet the 85’ setback from all lot lines. I'here is no doubt that there is less of a visual impact upon the David MacMillan property at this location than at the northwest front yard location where structure would meet the 85’ setback, review Exhibit F. The elevations are higher. The adjacent trees would provide less of a visual buffer. It would be most helpful if the City could receive some input from Mr. MacMillan as lO his position regarding the two locations of the antenna. If the 32’ setback is more acceptable to Mr. MacMillan, then the City may accept a hold harmless agreement from David MacMillan whereby City would not be held responsible for any damage done to the property if antenna/tower struemre was to collapse.