Laserfiche WebLink
~Jerome Udz - 5 - ~ August 23, 2004 <br /> <br />A 777lV$ Comments: <br /> <br />The phrase "obviates the need for comP/lance "is unnecessarily ambiguous, we assume the <br />intent of this phrase is to enable a wireless carder to reduce the setback where existing or <br />proposed screening or CamourTaging mitigate the visual impact oF the proposed wireless <br />facility to a degree equal to or better than if the proposed facility compiled with the standard <br />setback requirement. ~/e request andrecommend that the City modi~ the language to make <br />this intent c/ear. · .' <br /> <br /> (de) The city may grant a variance to the 75 foot height limitation in the R;I <br /> zone to a maximum of 100 feet providing the. applicant demonstrates <br /> that a transmission tower taller than 75 feet w~ll direct y eliminate the <br /> need for 1 or more additional transmission towers in an R-1 zone. <br /> <br /> A TTWS Comment: <br /> <br /> See comment above regarc/lngproposednew section (7)(d)(2). <br /> <br /> (e~ If the proposed transmission tower or ancillary facility requires site revieTM <br /> or a conditional use permit, the request for variance shall be considered <br /> as part of the site review or conditional use permit process. If the <br /> proposed transmission tower or ancillary facility is an outright permitted <br /> use, the request for a variance shall be processed pursuant to Type II <br /> application procedures beginning at EC 9.7200 General Overview of <br /> Type II Application Procedures except that the decision shall be based <br /> on the criteria in this section. <br /> <br /> A TTW$ Comments: <br /> <br />· No changespropo~ed; no comments. <br /> <br /> ('11) Fees. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, the city manager' <br /> [may] #ha//require, as part of application fees for building or land use 'permits <br /> for telecommunication facilities, an amount sufficient to recover all of the city's <br /> costs in retaining consultants to verify statements made in conjunction with the <br /> permit application, to the extent that verification requires telecommunications <br /> expertise. <br /> <br /> A TTWS Comments: <br /> <br /> All fees charged should be reasonable and retlect t~o more than the actual cost incurred by the <br /> City in reviewing a wire/ess carrier's application. Consequent[y, rather than requiring the City <br /> Manager to co]]ect Fees "su~cient to cover al]of the City's costs" at the point the wire/ess <br /> applicant submits an application, we request and recommend that the City modify this section <br /> <br /> Y:\WI:~ATT~uGEN~COMMENT LTR 082304.DOC I¥-4 9 <br /> <br /> <br />