Laserfiche WebLink
Conclusion: According to information provided by the Applicant, the proposed tower must <br /> be conshucted at the height requQsted in order to achfeve its coverage objectives. <br /> 4. Maintenance or roplacement of exlsting facilitles, and the inatallation of naw utility <br /> poles, switch eabinets, pad mount tranaformers or other similar utility facilities oi a <br /> minor nature and amall acale are exempt trom this Subsectlon. <br /> Fjp�jpp: The proposed monopole (s large fn scale. <br /> Conctusfon: The proposed monopole is not exempt from review according to this <br /> Subsection. <br /> VARIANCE CetITERIA: The propased monopole hefght of 150 feet exceeds the 28 foot <br /> maximum height Iimitation in the R-2 zone and the 150 foot setback required by Subsection <br /> 39.040. Therefore, the proposal is subject to the variance criteria in subsectfon 41.130.0 of the <br /> Zoning Code. <br /> Crlterion No. 1: That the variance la necessary because of exceptional or extraordin�ry <br /> circumstances regarding the size, shape, topography, or Ixation oi tha subJect <br /> property; or the Iocation of a pre�xisting Improvement on the subJect property thnt <br /> conformed to the zoning code in eHeet when the Improvament was constructed. <br /> F�1pp: The Applfcant is replacing an exfsting 300 foot high tower that does not comply <br /> with the maximum height limitation or the setback requfrements in the current zoning code. <br /> No information is available as to when the tower was constructed but the building on site <br /> was built in 1965 according to Assessors Office. <br /> Conclusion: The variance (s necessary because of the need to replace an existfng tower <br /> that does not conform to the current zoning code. <br /> Criterion No. 2: That the variance will not be materially detrimental to the property In <br /> the area of the subject property or to the City as a whole. <br /> Findina: A new monopole at a lower height than the existing 300 foot tower will reduce the <br /> impact on the surrounding area. <br /> Conclusion: The variance will not be materially detrimental to the property in the area or to <br /> the City as a whole. <br /> Crtterion No. 3: That the variance will only grant the subJect property the same general <br /> rights enjoyed by other property in the same area and zone as the subject property. <br /> Findina: The Applicant has the general right to keep and maintain the existing 300 foot high <br /> tower. The Applicant could remove a portion of the tower in which a variance would not be <br /> required. The variance will allow the applicant to replace the existing tower wilh a new <br /> monopole which will turther reduce the visual impact on the neighborhood through the <br /> elimination of the existing guy wires supporting the existing tower. <br /> Conclusion: No additional rights will be granted to this property. <br /> EXHIBIT �► � <br /> PAGE SDF 7 <br />