Agenda - 05-01-1996 - IX-E - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

31 setback of the zoning district. The lesser setbacks adjacent to non-residential districts or uses could address potential setback problems on small commercial lots, -without impacting existing residences. Towers or structures which qualify as stealth applications and are not subject to approval of a Special Use Permit must meet setback provisions of Article 6.2.1(a ) which requires 2 additional feet for front and side setbacks, in addition to the standard setback specified in Article 5.1, for each foot of height above the maximum height specified for the zoning district. 6. Unreasonable interference with view. The proposed amendment presented for public hearing in November 1995 included a standard that"the tower and antenna will not unreasonably interfere with the view of or from any historic site, scenic road, or major view corridor. Questions were raised regarding how "unreasonable interference" would be defined. This provision has been eliminated from the draft due to the lack of a specific standard to define "unreasonable". The intent of the provision would be met in making the general Special Use Permit findings, particularly the findings that the use maintain or enhance the use of contiguous property, and that the location and character of the use is in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and is in compliance with zoning regulations and the Land Use Plan. 7. Minimum Tower Height It is expected that the height of new towers will decrease after construction of the network of towers that will provide the basic coverage needed for the system. The location of additional towers is based on demand, and as towers are closer together,the height requirements are not as great. Based on a review of requirement of other jurisdictions, both local and national, the Planning Staff recommends that towers less than 75 feet in height be permitted by right. 8. Other Types of Towers Commissioner Willhoit questioned the applicability of proposed amendments to towers other than those used for telecommunication purposes, such as those used for air quality monitoring. The staff recommends that telecommunication towers continue to be treated as a specific use because each tower is constructed in the context of a larger network, and it can be anticipated that requests for additional towers to add to that network will continue. The proposed ordinance provisions address issues which are unique to a telecommunications network.