Resolution 2009-005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

mounted antenna. The revised plans were dated December so, 2oo8 and consisted of the following drawings which are incorporated as Exhibit C: 1. Project information and general notes drawing no. A:LN672-T2- 2. Site Plan drawing no. AiN672-Cl.; 3. Enlarged Site Plan drawing no. AiN672-C2' 4. Landscaping Plan drawing no. Ai.N672-C3, and 5. Antenna information and tower and tower elevation drawing no. A1N62- ki. J. On January 28, 2oog, FMHC submitted a letter indicating a willingness to amend its application. K. On February 2, 2009, the City received a report prepared by Richard A. Comi from the Center for Municipal Solutions, attached and incorporated as Exhibit D, which includes an analysis of the City's regulations, the original FMHC application and the proposed amended FMHC application ("Comi Report"). The Comi Report concluded that the applications submitted was not in compliance with the City's regulations for the following reasons: I. "Documentation that demonstrates and proves the need for the Wireless Telecommunications Facility to provide service primarily and essentially within the City. Such documentation shall include propagation studies of the proposed site and all adjoining planned, proposed, in-service • existing sites that demonstrate a significant gap in coverage and/or if a capacity need, including an analysis of current and projected usage. The actual intended transmission power stated as the maximum effective radiated power (ERP) in watts should be used in this analysis. If the maximum power is not used, an acceptable explanation why it has not been used should be provided. 2. "in the case of a new Tower, the Applicant shall be required to submit a written report demonstrating its meaningful efforts to secure shared use • existing Tower(s) orthe e• alternative buildings or other structures within the applicants search ring. Copies of written requests and responses for shared use shall be provided to the City in the Application, along with any letters • rejection stating the reason for rejection. 3. "The City, as opposed to the construction of a new Tower, prefers locating on existing Towers or others structures without increasing the height. The Applicant has not submitted a comprehensive report inventorying existing Towers and other suitable structures within the I