Laserfiche WebLink
,. , 7.O COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMENTS <br />�i o � <br />107 <br />� o>� <br />109 <br />1 '10 <br />11� <br />112 <br />113 <br />11 ^- <br />115 <br />��� <br />117 <br />11 £3 <br />7.1 Section 1013.10A1 (City-Owned Towers) allows telecommunication towers that are <br />owned by the City as permitted uses in business and industrial districts or as <br />cotvD�T[oNAL usES in all other zoning districts. This provision allows Clearwire to erect a <br />tower, convey ownership of the tower to Roseville, and lease the tower and ground space <br />required for their telecommunication equipment on City Hall Campus as a coNDiTrotvAL <br />usE in the POS zoning district. <br />7.2 Section 1013.10A3 (Collocation on City Sites) further requires that new <br />telecommunication equipment be mounted on existing towers when it is "technically <br />feasible" to mount the new equipment among or around existing equipment. As noted <br />above, collocation on an existing tower on City Hall Campus is not technically feasible, <br />but this Code provision supports the proposed 150-foot height to enable collocation on <br />the new tower, minimizing the total number of towers on the site as future <br />telecommunication service providers utilize the same location. <br />� �� 7.3 Section 1014.01 (Conditional Uses) of the City Code requires the Planning Commission <br />�2o and City Council to consider the following criteria when reviewing a cotvDtTlotvAL UsE <br />� z � application: <br />�2z a. <br />� z:� b. <br />i2� c. <br />12� <br />�2o d. <br />�z; e. <br />� 2 � f. <br />Impact on traffic; <br />Impact on parks, streets, and other public facilities; <br />Compatibility of the site plan, internal traffic circulation, landscaping, and <br />structures with contiguous properties; <br />Impact of the use on the market value of contiguous properties; <br />Impact on the general public health, safety, and welfare; and <br />Compatibility with the City's Comprehensive Plan. <br />� z� 7.4 Impact on traffic: The Planning Division has determined that an increase in traffic <br />� 3o volume or impact to traffic flow due to the installation of a tower in either of the locations <br />�:3� being discussed will not be a significant issue given that such a facility is not the origin or <br />� 3z destination of vehicle trips beyond the initial construction and occasional maintenance. <br />13.3 7.5 Impact on parks, streets and other public facilities: The Planning Division has <br />13�= determined that the only potential impact of a telecommunications tower on the City"s <br />�:�s parks, streets, and/or other facilities would be aesthetic, aside from minor, periodic <br />� 3� disruptions to traffic on Woodhill Drive if the alternate location is selected. While <br />�3� nothing can be feasibly done to mask the tower itself, the applicant proposes to screen <br />� 3� ground-mounted equipment in an enclosure that matches the City Hall building itself. <br />139 <br />140 <br />�a� <br />142 <br />143 <br />,�, <br />7.6 Compatibility ... with contiguous properties: A tower in either of the locations <br />considered would not change the circulation on the property. While another 150-foot <br />tower on the City Hall Campus might not be aesthetically compatible with the residential <br />uses across Lexington Avenue and County Road C, Planning Division staff believes that <br />the proposed use (i.e., the provision of wireless Internet service itsel� would be <br />welcomed by most property owners as a residential amenity. <br />PF09-031 RCA 011110 <br />Page 4 of 6 � <br />• <br />