My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-22-1990 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1990
>
10-22-1990 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/10/2025 11:17:13 AM
Creation date
2/10/2025 11:15:22 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
448
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
OROMO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 8, 1990 <br />ZONING FILE #15«8 - US WEST NEW VECTOR GROUP CONTINUED <br />concrete evidence, it could be denied without having a <br />moratorium. In Orono Code, churches and day care centers are not <br />COTimercial and approve^-* residential zones on a conditional use <br />permit. They have no v e near the impact that a tower of this <br />nature would have. <br />Nettles favored a conceptual denial. The "piggybacking" of <br />conditional use permits is a concern. He stated that although <br />the application cannot be denied because of aesthetic reasons, US <br />West seems to be going in the wrong direction. People are out in <br />Orono because they want as much pristine living as possible. <br />They have paid a lot of money for the lots and this may adversely <br />affect the value because people don't want to see the tower. <br />Under the Code, there are ways to deny the application which is <br />how this should be approached. A point of interest noted was <br />that US West says Orono cannot turn them down because of aestheic <br />reasons and yet that is the re son Woodhill and Wayzata Country <br />Clv.bs have been eliminated. Nettles agrees with Mr. Gopinath <br />that other alternatives could be found and encourages US West to <br />pursue tnose. Because there is an existing tower in Wayzata, the <br />service is available and therefore doesn't mean the City is <br />denying an integral public utility service. He asked US West <br />what they are currently doing to service this area. <br />Dave Hellerman replied that there is soir ignal. They have <br />to build the capacity of the system. As th are more and more <br />users, the quality deteriorates without Jding additional <br />facilities. <br />Nettles asked about using the water tower in Wayzata which <br />already has a competing tower and if it is technically <br />impossible. <br />Hellerman stated that it is technically impossible, <br />Peterson asked if this system is to serve Wayzata. <br />Mr. Hellerman responded by saying that what is being <br />proposed is part of a larger system. There are 37 cells <br />functional within the Minneapolis area in 6 years of growth. In <br />another 2 years of growth there will be approximately 50 cells. <br />These need to be located to take advantage of frequency reuse. <br />As cell sites get closer together, they will try to lower the <br />antennas. They are trying to do what the community wants as well <br />as service the present market of tens of thousands of phone <br />users. The people who use the phones do not necessarily live or <br />work in this area but travel throughout the area. It is not an <br />issue of competiton or cost, but of the many people currently <br />using both systems who rely of the best possible service and <br />quality.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.