Resolution - #00-04-092 - 04/11/2000

Home

• 10. That there is existing tree cover in the proposed location for the tower 11. That the Applicant has submitted support documents with the application consisting of the following: a) a written description of the proposal from U.S. West to the City Zoning Administrator dated November 16, 1999; b) a color rendering of the monopole tower and equipment cabinets; c) a written description of the design criteria by Valmont Microflect dated August 25, 1998; d) a certificate of survey of the Site; e) site plan packet dated October 28, 1999, revision date January 19, 2000, consisting of Sheet Z -1 Title Sheet, Sheet Z -2 Vicinity Map, Sheet Z -3 Site Plan, Sheet Z -4 Enlarged Site Plan and Sheet Z -5 Elevation; f) aerial view of area dated January 19, 2000. 12. That Section 9.15.09 of the City Code restricts tower heights in Residential Districts to 75 feet unless the Applicant can demonstrate to City Council that the additional increase in height is needed to accommodate a second user and the surrounding topography, structures, vegetation and other factors make the height limit for a complying tower impractical. 13. That the Applicant has stated that the tower will be designed to accommodate a total of 4 users and that there are no other structures in the area at the height needed to provide seamless coverage. 14. That the Applicant has stated that access to the Site may be required 2 or 3 times a year for maintenance purposes and is proposed to achieve access from 177 Avenue N.W. 15. That the proposed use will substantially impair the use or market value of surrounding properties. 16. That the proposed use is proposed to be located in the rear yard of the existing residence in accordance with Section 9.15.03 of the City Code. 17. That the Applicant's proposal for a 180 foot high tower is equal to 240% of the 75 foot height limit established in the Residential district and the Applicant has not provided evidence to support that the surrounding topography, structures, vegetation and other factors make the height limit for a complying tower impractical. 18. That the proposed use will be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. 19. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services. 20. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and will be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. RESOLUTION #00 -04 -092 Page 2 of 3