Laserfiche WebLink
the Conni Report, the [hv Cound[fiDdS that the FMHC application does not cOnQp|« <br />with the City's regulations for the following reasons: <br />A. The design standards applicable to wireless telecommunication towers state <br />that the tower should be designed (i) To blend in with the surrounding <br />environment through the use of color and architectural treatment; and (a) Be 8 <br />monopole, unless the City Council determines that an alternative design will <br />better blend in with the surrounding environment., One of the purposes ofthe <br />City's Wireless Telecommunication Tower Permit Regulations is to minimize <br />adverse visual effects Of wireless telecommunication towers, antenna, or <br />accessory equipment through careful design and site standards. Neither 125 <br />foot tower with 8 1ovv profile platform and antennae array, nor a 3-10 foot tower <br />with a canister system for antennas adequately blends the tower in with the <br />surrounding environment. <br />B. According t0 the statements OfFMH{� their proposed tower could be shorter <br />and of a different design while still accommodating T-Mobile's service <br />objectives for this portion of the City. Although FK4H[ submitted revised plans <br />on January 20, 2Oo8, which depicted 8 zzO foot tVvv2r with a canister style <br />mounted antennas and represented that it would treat or paint the revised <br />tower a5 deemed appropriate bythe City Council, the proposed revisions, when <br />compared tothe original application, were considered substantial and the City <br />[Dundi concluded that such revisions amounted to a new application which <br />would need tobereviewed by the planning commission. <br />C. The City could not accommodate the review of the revised plans, includirloo <br />Planning Commission review before expiration the agreed upon review peril <br />and FMHC indicated that it wanted a decision on its original application befo <br />expiration of the agreed upon review period. <br />D. The City's regulations contain a priority listing for tower sites. The applicant has <br />not sufficiently demonstrated an inability to use existing towers or structures. <br />Secondly, there is City owned property adjacent to the Olinger PrnperLY, which <br />should have been explored as a possible site. This option was never presented <br />to the City Council for review. <br />E. Applicant has not provided documentation that demonstrates the need for the <br />proposed wireless telecommunication tower in order to provide service <br />primarily and essentially within the Lake Jane neighborhood hood of the City. <br />F. Applicant had not a provided written report demonstrating meaningful efforts <br />to secure shared use of existing towers, structures or other sites within the Lake <br />Jane neighborhood. <br />19 <br />