Laserfiche WebLink
Conclusion: The monopole will be utilized by other telecommunication companfes thus <br /> the proposed monopole at this location would be consistent with the the City's <br /> Comprehensive Plan. <br /> 10. Compllance wlth the provislons of this Ordinance and other City, State and Faderal <br /> regulatlons. <br /> Findina: The proposed monopole will require a Specfal Property Use pertnit, Variance, <br /> and buflding permit from the City's Building DepaRment. In addiHon, operatfon of the <br /> facility will requfre compliance with licensfng requirements of the Federal Communications <br /> Commission. <br /> Conclusion: The proposal should be in complfance with City Ordinances if a Specfal <br /> Property Use permit and Variance are granted. To the extent known by the City, the <br /> proposal will comply with all known state and federal requfrements. <br /> 11. Accossibtlity to public tnnstt, and traHic reductlon measures proposed by the <br /> applicant to reduce dependence of the proposed uae on the automoblle. <br /> Findino: Service vehicles are needed to maintain thfs facility. <br /> Conclusion: Transit cannot be used. <br /> $PU SPECIFIC EVALUATION CRITERIA• <br /> The following findfngs and conclusions are based on the criteria estabBshed In Section <br /> 41.150.D.1.a. of the Zoning Code - Special Property Use Permits- Evaluation Criteria for Above <br /> Ground Utility and Communication Facilities: <br /> 1. All utillty facillties shall be landscaped or otherwise screened to assure compatibility <br /> with surrounding properties. <br /> Findina: Only the base of the monopole can be screened. <br /> Conclusion: Addilfonal screening should be required as a condition of approval in order to <br /> ensure some compatibility with surrounding properties. <br /> 2. All utflity and communicatfon facillties shall be installed underground or within <br /> structures to the greatest extent practical in order to maximlze safety and minimize <br /> visual and noise impacts upon surrounding propertles. <br /> Findina: The applicant states that 150 feet is the minimum height for lhe monopole to <br /> function. <br /> Conclusion: Installing the proposed monopole underground or within an existing structure <br /> would not be practical or technically feasible. <br /> 3. Communicatlon towers and water storage tanks shall be designed to as to be the <br /> lowest height possible to adequately serve the needs of the community. <br /> Findina: The Applicant states that its coverage objectives would be met if il is allowed lo <br /> construct a 150 foot monopole. <br /> EXHIBIT u � <br /> PAGE�nF 7 <br />