My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf09-032
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
2009
>
pf09-032
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/29/2014 1:56:49 PM
Creation date
6/24/2013 4:01:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
09-032
Planning Files - Type
Conditional Use Permit
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
161
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
..:� 7.2 Planning Division staff has some concerns about the technical feasibility of requiring the <br />' �� diameter of the telecommunication pole to be similar to the light poles at the hockey rink, <br />' �5 as recommended by the Parks and Recreation Department. Limiting the diameter in this <br />"�6 fashion might be physically possible, but the existing light poles appear to be less than 33 <br />' �`7 feet in height whereas the proposed telecommunication pole would be 125 feet tall— and <br />:,3 would be designed to be extended to accommodate other providers in the future. <br />1 G9 7.3 REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA <br />� � o Section 1014.01 (Conditional Uses) of the City Code requires the Planning Commission <br />� � � and City Council to consider the following criteria when reviewing a �otv�►T[oNA[. usE <br />� � z application: <br />1 �3 <br />114 <br />1'S <br />1^:6 <br />117 <br />��� <br />119 <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 />�2o a. Impact on traffic: The Planning Division has determined that an increase in traftic <br />�z� volume due to the installation of the proposed tower will not be an issue given that <br />�22 such a facility is not the origin or destination of vehicle trips beyond the initial <br />�2s construction and occasional maintenance. <br />! 2n b. Impact on parks, streets and other public facilities: The Planning Division has <br />^� 2� determined that the only potential impact of a telecommunications tower on the City's <br />� zs parks, streets, and/or other facilities would be aesthetic given that the presently- <br />�2� proposed location has been selected to ensure that the equipment does not physically <br />� 28 interfere with park-related activities. <br />�2y c. Compatibility ... with contiguous properties: A tower would not change the <br />� 3o circulation on the property. While a 125-foot tower in a City park might not be <br />�3� aesthetically compatible with the park and nearby residential uses, Planning Division <br />� 32 staff believes that the proposed use (i.e., the provision of wireless Internet service <br />� 33 itsel fl would be seen by most property owners as a residential amenity. <br />� 3a d. Impact of the use on the market value of contiguous properties: Planning <br />� 3� Division staff does not believe that a 125-foot telecommunications in the proposed <br />�i 3d location is likely to have a negative impact on the value of nearby residential parcels <br />137 in light of the fact that the park has several existing — albeit shorter — light poles. <br />13£3 <br />139 <br />140 <br />141 <br />142 <br />143 <br />e. Impact on the general public health, safety, and welfare: The Planning Division is <br />unaware of negative impacts on the general public health, safety, and welfare caused <br />by the provision of wireless Internet service as proposed. Moreover, the Federal <br />Communications Commission, which is the regulating authority for communications <br />equipment like what is currently proposed, prohibits a local government from denying <br />such equipment for reasons pertaining to health. <br />PF09-032 RCA 011110 <br />Page 4 of 7 � <br />� <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.