My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2009_1116_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2009
>
2009_1116_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/9/2012 3:27:44 PM
Creation date
8/9/2010 4:37:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
104
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
� � parks, streets, and/or other facilities would be aesthetic. While nothing can be feasibly <br />� c done to mask the tower itself, the applicant proposes to screen ground-mounted <br />�c equipment in an enclosure that matches the City Hall building itself. <br />� c 7.6 Compatibility ... with contiguous properties: The proposed tower would not change <br />� c the circulation on the property. While another 150-foot tower on the City Hall Campus <br />� c might not be aesthetically compatible with the residential uses across Lexington Avenue <br />�c and County Road C, Planning Division staff believes that the proposed use (i.e., the <br />� c provision of wireless Internet service itselfj would be welcomed by most property owners <br />11 as a residential amenity. <br />11 7.7 Impact of the use on the market value of contiguous properties: Planning Division <br />11 staff is unaware of existing market analyses indicating that telecommunications towers <br />11 like the one currently proposed have a negative impact on the value of properties that are <br />11 already adjacent to railways, major roadways and electrical transmission towers. <br />11 7.8 Impact on the general public health, safety, and welfare: The Planning Division is <br />11 unaware of any negative impacts on the general public health, safety, and welfare caused <br />11 by the provision of wireless Internet service as proposed. Moreover, the Federal <br />11 Communications Commission (FCC), which is the regulating authority for <br />11 communications equipment like what is currently proposed, prohibits a local government <br />�� from denying equipment which complies with FCC technical requirements for reasons <br />� � pertaining to health. <br />�� 7.9 Compatibility with the City's Comprehensive Plan: Although the primary use of the <br />�� proposed tower is commercial in nature, it would also provide wide-spread benefits of <br />�� wireless Internet service as well as additional technology infrastructure for City <br />�� operations, which Planning Division staff believes to be consistent with the <br />Comprehensive Plan's guidance of the property for institutional uses. <br />H.O PUBLIC HEARING <br />�� The duly noticed public hearing for the coNDiT1oNAL usE application was held by the <br />�� Planning Commission on November 4, 2009. No communication was received from the <br />�: public before or after the public hearing. One person in attendance inquired whether the <br />�: equipment proposed for the City Hall Campus would improve the cellular phone service <br />�: in the neighborhood to the south of Acorn Park; the response to this question indicated <br />�: that new or modified telecommunications equipment at the City Hall Campus would not <br />�: appreciably improve the cellular phone service in that area. Terre Heiser, Roseville's <br />�: Director of Information Technology, and Tony Vavoulis, the applicant's representative, <br />�: answered Planning Commissioners' questions about why the proposed tower site was <br />�: selected over other potential locations that might have less visual impact and how the <br />�: tower could be of benefit to regular City operations. Draft minutes of the public hearing <br />�: are included with this staff report as Attachment D. <br />1 � 9.O RECOMMENDATION <br />�� In its review of the coNDiT1oNAL usE application, the Planning Commission found that a <br />�� telecommunication tower in the proposed location would not have adverse impacts <br />�� pertaining to the criteria to be considered with such requests and voted unanimously (i.e., <br />6-0) to recommend approval of the proposed coNDiT1oNAL usE. Sased the general <br />PF09-031 RCA 111609.doc <br />Page 4 of 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.