2005-10-19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

October 19, 2005 Plan Commission Minutes Page 6 of 16 (c). Fees, costs, or other contractual terms required by the owner(s) within the applicant’s proposed service area would exceed the costs of a new facility; (d) Co-location would cause signal interference or otherwise impair the quality of service provided by an existing potential host facility or cause that facility go to off-line for a significant period of time, or (e) Other limiting conditions exist that would make co-location not feasible; (6) Whetherexisting towers or structures have sufficient structural strength to support the applicant’s proposed telecommunications antennas; (7) Whether the applicant has submitted a statement that it will provide a surety bond, as per Subsection 2j below, that will cover the cost of dismantlement, emergency repairs, and, when necessary, removal of all structures and debris, and restoration of the site; (8) Whether the applicant has submitted a statement assuring proof of indemnification as per Subsection 2k below;. (9) Whether the applicant has submitted a statement assuring proof of insurance as per Subsection 2l below;. (10) Whether the proposed telecommunications antennas would experience or cause signal interference with telecommunications antennas on existing towers or structures; (11) Whether the fees, costs, or other contractual terms to recommission an existing inoperabletower(s) or structure(s) are reasonable. Costs exceeding that of a new tower are presumed to be unreasonable; (12) Whether the design of the telecommunications facility, equipment shelter, and ground layout is compatible with the general visual effect of the neighboring properties. 2. General Development Requirements a. Height: Towers. No tower, or a disguised support structure, shall be approved in excess of one hundred twenty five (125) feet in height unless a clear showing that such height is required to provide personal wireless services, or reasonably required for public safety communications of a governmental entity sharing the tower and such showing is supported by the opinion of a telecommunications expert consultant hired by the city at K:\WPOFFICE\WPDATA\m-10-19-2005.plc.final.wpd