1998-03-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

March 25, 1998 Plan Commission Minutes Page 8 school district. Mr. Stockell added his version of the negotiations. Mr. Walsh asked what was the purpose of requirement number 5. Mr. Rose stated that it was to require co-location and to promote a sincere attempt on the applicant’s part to search for the best location. Mr. Reed felt that the requirement was ambiguous at best and that he felt it would be permissible to ignore it if the purpose was to require that co-location be met. Mr. Self stated that co- location has been met since there are no other towers in the area. Mr. Walsh stated that the commission members will have to exercise judgement on this matter and he feels that requirement has been met by the good faith negotiations with the school district put forth by the applicant. Mr. Walsh stated that he will be voting in favor of the application. Mr. Glassman stated that she would prefer the vote be put off for a month to allow more time for negotiation. She stated that the high school site is a better location, better design and is less expensive. The Plan Commission determined that the evidence presented to the Plan Commission supports the conclusion that the proposed conditional use: a) Complies with all applicable provisions of the Zoning Code; b) At the specific location will contribute to and promote the community welfare or convenience; c) Will not cause substantial injury to the value of neighboring property; d) Complies with the overall neighborhood development plan and existing zoning district provisions; and e) Will provide, if applicable, off-street parking and loading areas in accordance with the standards contained in the Zoning Code. The Plan Commission also found that the evidence presented also supports the conclusion that the proposed conditional use: 1) Is located within the geographic area necessary to meet the applicant’s engineering requirements. 2) The existing towers, structures or buildings within the applicant’s required geographic area are not of sufficient height to meet system engineering requirements. 3) Existing towers or structures do not have sufficient structural strength to support the applicant’s proposed telecommunications antennas. 4) The proposed telecommunications antennas would not experience or cause signal interference with telecommunications antennas on existing towers or structures. 5) The fees, costs, or other contractual terms required by the owner(s) of existing tower(s), structure(s), or building(s) within the required geographic area of the applicant or to retrofit the existing tower(s) or structure(s) are not reasonable. Costs exceeding that of a new tower are presumed to be unreasonable. 6) There are not other limiting conditions that render existing towers, structures or buildings within the applicant’s required geographic area unsuitable. 7) The design of the tower or structure, including the telecommunications antennas, shelter, and ground layout maximally reduces visual degradation and otherwise complies with the provisions and intent of this ordinance. 8) The proposal minimizes the number and size of the towers or structures that will be required in the geographic area surrounding the proposed site. 9) The applicant did not fail to take advantage of available shared use options provided by this ordinance or otherwise. Mr. Walsh moved that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit subject to the following conditions: 1.A detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Director of Planning for review. The landscape material shall be installed and shall be maintained in accordance with the plan. Said plan shall be submitted and approved prior to the operation being used for wpoffice\wpdata\m-3-25.plc