Laserfiche WebLink
3. Tire impact of traffic generated by the proposed use on the surrounding area, <br />pedestrian circulation and public afety; and the ability of the proponent to mitigate <br />such poter.tlal impacts. <br />Finding: The proposal may generate some minimal traffic associated with the initial <br />installation and s �I-up. However, once the facility is operating, no on -going traffic will <br />be generated. <br />Conclusion: There will be no adverse traffic impacts generated by the proposal. <br />4. The provision of adequate off-street parking, on -site circulation, and site access. <br />Finding: No permanent on -site parking is requited for the proposal. <br />Conclusion: Not applicable. <br />5. Compatibility of proposed structures and improvements with strrounding <br />properties, including the size, height, location, setback and arrangement of all <br />proposed buildings and facilities, especially as they relate to light and shadow <br />Impacts on more sensitive land uses and less intensive zones. <br />Finding: The proposed antennas would be installed at approximately the 117-font level <br />of the existing monopole, which has a total height of 135 feet. The area immediately <br />surrounding the site is developed with a golf course and City reservoir. The nearest <br />residences are located several hundred feet away to the south and northwest of the <br />antenna site. Land use compatibility issues were adequately addressed for the monopole <br />when it underwent a formal land use review in 1997-98 by the Hearing Examiner. The <br />decision by the Hearing Fxaminer authorized a total of up to 3 wireless providers on the <br />site. The instant request would allow the third and final provider to be located on the <br />tower. <br />Conclusion: The proposed antennas would not be incompatible with the surrounding <br />properties. Impacts associated with the monopole have already been addressed (SPU <br />#97-004). <br />6. The number, size and location of signs, especially as they relate to more sensitive <br />land uses. <br />Finding: No signage is proposed. <br />Conclusion: Not applicable. <br />The landscaping, buffering and screening of buildings, parking, loading and storage <br />areas, especially as they relate to more sensitive land uses. <br />