1996 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

i Planning Commission Planning Case No. SP-00 i-96; Telecommunications Ordinance Decemher 12, 1996 Page 2 �4ccesso�y �uil`li�e�s: Also in �ection 1126.03, �ubd. 2, the requirement for CLTPs for accessary buzldings in ihe FF and CRP districts was deleted. In a subsequent section of the ordinance, texi was added that amends the PF and CRP districts to allow accessory equipment structures only when associated with a CV�TTS tower and/or antenna as a permitted accessory use. A1so regarding accessory equiprnent structures, text was added to the co-location requirements section that addresses how new buildings would be treated in reiation io e�sting buildings. La�sdscapin� � Sc�eenin�. Added to the ordinance is a seciion that makes explicit the iandscaping and screening requirements. Basically, a tree-scr�eri of evergreens and ornamentat deciduous trees is required �o be planted around the fence so that at least 50% of the accessory struc�ure and/or tower ba§e is screened from view. �ecause some sites may not need landscaping either because existing foliage is sufficient or because the site might be in the middle of an industrial site parking lot, the screening and landscaping requirement can be waived. Ps°oce�lural Ite�a�i�°e�zents: The o�her major change to ihe ordinance from its previous version is the addition of a lisi of submittal requirements for CUPs, sirziilar to wl�at had been listed under building permit requirements. Those requirements were moved under the CUP heading because the information would be needed in order to approve a CUP. If no CUP is required, then the same information would be required to be submitted with the building permit application. Also in the procedural section, a clarification was made to the praof of insurance requirement and an -� abandoned tower clause was added. Co-locranon: We have removed the requirement for a"letter of intent" which would have required all new towers to allow for co-location. This change was primarily znade due to legal considerations. The provision would not be workable anyway, because it was the Planning Commission's desire that an applicant have a signed leased agreement, or other such documeni, for the second user before they received the height bonus for co-lacation. If the applicant had a lease in hand, a letter of intent is not necessary. The other changes are minor and can be addressed during �he Planning Commission meeting on December 18, 1996, if the Commissioners have any questions. N:\DATA\U SERSI3IME\SI IA12E\TO WERM�M.PC3