Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1588 <br />October 5, 1990 <br />Page 6 <br />Site Plan/Blevation/Landscaping <br />As already noted, the wetland has been determined using the <br />City wetland maps. Security fencing is located within the 26' <br />setback area. The actual dimensions of the base of the towe^r <br />have not been shown. The accessory structure will be 12' x 30'. <br />The prefabricated unit is to be covered with a beige gelcoat. <br />The structure would stand approximately 9' 7" high. The <br />use/function of this structure is to serve as an equipment <br />storage building. Applicant proposes evergreen plantings along <br />south and east sides of structure. Based on the proximity of the <br />Luce Line, it would be appropriate to provide screening along the <br />north and west sides of the exterior sides of the gravel <br />driveway, at least to shield lower portions of tower and <br />accessory structure. <br />Other Review Issues <br />Outside of the zoning issues discussed above and the <br />concerns of the neighbors, staff would add the following: <br />Search Criteria - The applicant has explained in detail the <br />criteria used in determining the location for an antenna. <br />Review Exhibit E. In Exhibits U and V, the applicant has <br />attempted to explain why this specific area was selected for <br />the antenna location siting specific reasons why this site <br />was selected. <br />" 150' height appears excessive. <br />Applicant has advised that the height is needed to meet the <br />3 mile radius service area. In consideration of topography. <br />Applicant also advises that lighting will not be required <br />either on buildings or on tower. <br />Noise Impact - The applicant advises that there will be <br />minimal sounds emitted from the structure. Maintenance <br />vehicles will visit but there will be no regular daily <br />visitation. <br />Note that applicant has provided an engineer's evaluation of <br />the structure's stability (Exhibit H). In response to the usual <br />question of diminishing property values, the applicant has also <br />provided comments from Peter J. Patchin & Associates (Exhibit I). <br />In reviewing Mr. Patchin's letter it would appear that the <br />properties used in the comparison are not similar to the <br />lands/densities of neighborhoods adjacent to this proposed <br />antenna site.