Laserfiche WebLink
Resolution 200540 <br />Page 3 <br />d. The variance will alter the character of the area, by allow a <br />tower closer to the property line than what would be otherwise <br />expected or what is otherwise possible and feasible <br />e. The property can be put to reasonable use without the granting <br />of the variance <br />f. The variance is not in keeping with the spirit and intent and <br />text of the ordinance. <br />g. The applicant stated on the record at the Planning Commission <br />meeting on July 14, 2005 that the tower could be moved to a <br />different spot on the property to be in compliance with the <br />ordinance. <br />7. The tower is opposed to the spirit intent and text of the ordinance, as the need for <br />the tower has not been demonstrated, it does not comply with setback <br />requirements, the screening requirements, or the co -location requirements <br />8. The property can be put to reasonable use without the granting of a variance to <br />allow for a setback encroachment for a communications tower. <br />9. The essential character of the neighborhood will be altered by the approval of a <br />communications tower in this location. <br />10. The denial will not have the effect of denying cellular communication coverage in <br />the area, because there is already coverage provided by other companies, other <br />locations for towers appear to be feasible, have not been shown not to be feasible <br />and other existing towers are available for co -location. <br />ADOPTED by the City Council this 18a' day of July 2005. <br />4 Atton�yor <br />ATTEST: <br />I���jo- <br />A'��r <br />Mary Creager, City Cl <br />