2005-10-19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

October 19, 2005 Plan Commission Minutes Page 5 of 16 subject site is considered necessary to accomplish the applicant’s coverage objectives; and why the proposed site is the most appropriate location under existing circumstances. Applicant is required to present maps, which clearly and legibly display the geographic area in which it claims current service is inadequate and how the proposed telecommunications facility wouldill alleviate such inadequacy. Such maps will cover all of University City and surrounding areas within two miles of the boundaries of University City. Such maps will also display the locations of all the telecommunications facilities of all providers within the map area. b. Findings Required. In addition to any other determinations specified by Article 11, the Plan Commission shall make findings as to the following based upon evidence submitted with the application or presented during the public hearing by the applicant or others. A recommendation by the Commission to approve or deny an application shall be based upon substantial evidence which shall be made a part of the written record of the meeting at which a final decision on the application is rendered. The written record shall include the Commission’s comments on each of the following required findings: (1) Whether the placement, construction, or modification of a telecommunications facility in the proposed location is necessary for the provision of wireless communications services to University City residences, public facilities, and businesses, or their residents, owners, customers, guests, or invitees, or other persons traveling in or about the City; (2) Whether existing towers are located within the geographic area necessary to meet the applicant’s engineering requirements; (3) Whether existing towers, structures or buildings within the applicant’s required geographic area are of sufficient height to meet system engineering requirements; (4) Whether all applicable Development Requirements per Subsection 2, below, have been met; (5) Whether the proposed facility can be co-located with other existing or proposed facilities (such as a tower or monopole). At least one of the following findings is required, along with a detailed explanation, if the applicant claims that co-location is not feasible: (a) Co-location would cause adverse aesthetic or environmental effects; (b) Co-location is not permitted by the existing facility’s owner; K:\WPOFFICE\WPDATA\m-10-19-2005.plc.final.wpd