Laserfiche WebLink
7. The City Council determined that each tower must be set back a distance from adjoining <br /> property lines as a minimum equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the tower height. <br /> <br />The City Council determined that a separation requirement requiring a tower to maintain <br />a distance from any residentially zoned area would be a two hundred sixty (260) foot <br />separation. The Council also declined to require a separation distance between towers. <br /> <br />9. The City Council determined that aesthetics was not a concern. <br /> <br />10. The City Council determined the towers should be allowed to have lighting only if state or <br /> federal law required lighting. <br /> <br />11. The City Council determined the only signage permissible on towers would be signage <br /> necessary to identify the tower, and all commercial signage would be prohibited. <br /> <br />12. The City Council determined that all towers should be fenced. <br /> <br />13. <br /> <br />The Council determined that the City should required applicants for a permit to reimburse <br />the City for any actual cost incurred in hiring a special consultant to review permit <br />applications that were extremely complex. <br /> <br />14. The Council determined the City should require a permit application fee. <br /> <br />15. <br /> <br />The City Council determined that the ordinance should require co-location of towers where <br />appropriate or possible. In that light, the Council determined that the ordinance should also <br />require new towers to be built to structural standards that would accommodate one or more <br />additional antenna arrays. In addition, the Council determined that each applicant should <br />provide evidence it has considered other co-location sites before applying. <br /> <br />16. Finally, the Council determined that further review by the general public or Planning & <br /> Zoning Commission incident to final approval was unnecessary. <br /> <br />DESCRIPTION: Based on the decisions of Council with regard to the specific issues, and utilizing <br />as a source numerous model or adopted ordinances from other cities, the City Attorney has prepared <br />an ordinance for City Council's consideration. The proposed ordinance contains all of the directives <br />from City Council with regard to the scope of regulation by the City of Paris. The ordinance has been <br />forwarded to Ms. Pat Thompson ofFaulk & Foster, an industry representative, for her review. In <br />addition, the ordinance has been forwarded to Ms. Georgia Crump, an attorney specializing in <br />telecommunications law for her review and comment. <br /> <br />COST: The current ordinance does not contain a dollar amount for the proposed permit application <br />fee. The Legal Department defers to the Engineering and Building Inspection Department for a <br />suggested fee necessary to defray the costs anticipated by the City in processing the average permit <br />application. The ordinance does contain a requirement that permittees be prepared to defray the cost <br />incurred by the City for extremely complex applications if a special consultant has to be hired, up to <br /> <br /> <br />