Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1588 <br />October 5, 1990 <br />Page 6 <br />Site Plan/Elevation/Landscapinq <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 cf the base or the tower <br />have not been shewn. The accessory structure wi^- be — x 30 . <br />The prefabricated unit is to be covered witn a beige geicoat. <br />The structure would stand approximate-^y 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 tol>.cwing: <br />Search Criteria - The applicant has explained in detail the <br />criteria used in determining the vocation ror an antenna. <br />Review Exhibit S. In Exhibits U and V, the app:.icant 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 />Height of Structure - 150' height appears excessive. <br />Ap^li^nt has advised that the height is needed to meet che <br />3 mile radius service area. In consideration of topography. <br />Aoplicant also advises that lighting will net be required <br />either on buildings or on tower. <br />Noise Impact - The applicant advises tnat the^ /ill be <br />minimal sounds emitted from the structure. > , fenance <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. Patel . & Associates (Exhibi- 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,''densi ties of neighborhoods adjacent to this proposed <br />antenna site.