Laserfiche WebLink
Public Hearing, Ord. 98-131 <br />January lSf, 2000 <br />Commission. Mr. Butkiewicz would like the secondary azea across from the soccer <br />fields to be eliminated from the proposal. <br />Mary Gut, 4610 Porter Road <br />• She and her husband were considering purchasing a home in this area. and aze very <br />concerned about the possibility of towers being built there. Mr. Hunt explained that <br />Council is trying to find the right balance of azea to assign to the overlay district so <br />that residential areas aze not affected. The areas cannot be sa narrowly defined that in <br />affect there is no place to put the towers. Mrs. Gut was concerned about not being <br />notified of future meetings, and she was asked to ~gn a list for notification of a future <br />BZD Committee meeting. Mrs. Gut noted that the legislation talked about towers and <br />a "facility" and wondered what that was. Mr. Hunt said that "facility" is a broader <br />term which includes a tower, and many times it includes an equipmem building. <br />Mrs. Gut asked if towers could be built on city property. It was explained that the <br />city is not bound by its Zoning Code. Tt is possible for towers to be built on city <br />property, but such proposals would have to go through the Planning Commission and <br />there is notification pf meetings. The city does not own property all over the city, and <br />there are protections. <br />Kim Russell, 303'4 Bradley Road <br />• Shazes the concerns of other residetrts who have spoken, especially concerning heahh <br />issues. If the area across from the soccer fields is not excluded, it will change the <br />whole area and it abuts residential properties. In conjunction with Mrs. Russell's <br />statemems, Mr. Limpert asked the Law Director and Mr. Hunt about being too <br />restrictive in allotting area for the towers. Law Director Gareau said he would be <br />extremely concerned if the city does not make reasonable accommodations for these <br />facilities as they are mandated by federal law. Mr. Hum noted that, when he litigates <br />these issues, the first thing he does is show that there are many alternatives open to a <br />company in terms of locating a tower, in a less intrusive place or a place where it is <br />permitted under the zoning regulations. If the city so restricts the azea that it is so <br />small that there aze practically no other areas, then the city will lose a lawsuit. Mr. <br />Hunt said he believed that other areas at the east end of the city are needed. His <br />personal opinion is the mall area would be an excelleirt site. Mr. Limpert noted that <br />Ordinance 98-130 restricted the towers to being no closer than a half mile apart. He <br />said we would not want to see a "tower farm," but would we perhaps be wise to <br />reconsider the half-mile restriction and bring it down to a thud or a quarter of a mile, <br />thereby reducing the overall acreage that has to be incorporated into the zone and still <br />provide reasonable accommodations. Mr. Hum said that is an alternative. <br />Dave Nestoff, 5831 Park .Ridge <br />• His parents live on Bradley Road area where the zoning is light industrial. He would <br />like to speak on behalf of those residems who aze concerned the overlay legislation <br />will change the zoning of their azea. It was explained that this is an overlay zoning, <br />and the original zoning stays in place. For discussion purposes, Mr. Nestoff <br />suggested areas on the east end of town be considered and also Springvale golf <br />course. Mr. Limpert noted that city owned property is already included in areas <br />4 <br /> <br />