Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />� <br />h� slightly southward to ensure adequate screening from the residential properties to the <br />h5 southwest as shown in Attachment D. Staff would also recommend some sort of <br />ss landscape screening on the Rice Street side of the proposed installation, but the angle for <br />s� viewing the facility from Rice Street is so broad, substantial screening may be <br />sB impractical. <br />�9 5.6 <br />�o <br />71 <br />�� <br />� �z <br />�� <br />�:, <br />�E <br />�i <br />Section 1014.01 (Conditional Uses) requires the Planning Commission and City Council <br />to consider the following criteria when reviewing a cotv��Tiotv,aL usE application: <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 />�f2, a. Impact on traffic: The Planning Division has determined that an increase in <br />�y traffic volume due to the installation of the proposed tower will not be an issue <br />f3o given that such a facility is not the origin or destination of vehicle trips beyond <br />�s� the initial construction and occasional maintenance. <br />tz2 b. Impact on parks, streets and other public facilities: The Planning Division has <br />8s determined that the only potential impact of a telecommunications tower on the <br />s4 City's parks, streets, and/or other facilities would be aesthetic. While nothing can <br />�5 be feasibly done to mask the tower itself, some screening around the base and the <br />�E ground equipment is both proposed and required. <br />8i <br />88 <br />go <br />90 <br />91 <br />y2 <br />y.� <br />94 <br />95 <br />�h <br />O� <br />98 <br />oy <br />100 <br />101 <br />102 <br />103 <br />104 <br />105 <br />106 <br />c. Compatibility ... with contiguous properties: The proposed tower would not <br />change the circulation on the property. While another 125-foot tower on the office <br />property might not be aesthetically compatible with the surrounding residential, <br />business, and park uses, Planning Division staff believes that the proposed use <br />(i.e., the provision of wireless Internet service itsel� could be welcomed as a <br />residential, commercial, and recreational amenity. <br />d. Impact of the use on the market value of contiguous properties: Planning <br />Division staff is unaware of existing market analyses indicating that <br />telecommunications towers like the one currently proposed have a negative <br />impact on the value of nearby properties. While the presence of a nearby <br />monopole structure may make property owners feel differently about their own <br />properties, the additional or improved wireless service(s) provided from the tower <br />may well offset the aesthetic impact in the minds of future, prospective buyers. <br />e. Impact on the general public health, safety, and welfare: The Planning <br />Division is unaware of any negative impacts on the general public health, safety, <br />and welfare caused by the provision of wireless Internet service as proposed. <br />Moreover, the Federal Communications Commission, which is the regulating <br />authority for communications equipment like what is currently proposed, <br />prohibits a local government from denying such equipment for reasons pertaining <br />to health. <br />PF 10-010_RCA_062810 (2).doc <br />Pabe 3 of 5 <br />