Planning 2016-02-25 Minutes - Public Hearing - TMC 18.58 Wireless Faciltiies Update

Browse Search

Page 3 Public Hearing Minutes February 25, 2016 &..ustrnent to :ff feW i tan&.ud,s VWhere the Hearing Examiner finds that extraordinary hardships, practical difficulties, or unrnecessary and unreasonable expense would result from strict compliance with the height limitations of the Zoning Code, or the purpose of these regulations may be served to a greater extent by an alternative proposal, it may approve ,.ni. adqustnnlerllt 1 I - waiv = to these regulations; provided that the applicant demonstrates that tlne : -1,- V wbll A 1b atar�t it�jlusti un.ents a.re consisteiit wJth the values,; objectives, standards, and requirements of this Chapter„ 'FMC Title 18, and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and demonstrate the fdllowing:1 -ra rt tlne le e. rtknbnnne th afealtln... weld, on -rrr. .. e,4,, -and , ,.. A particular and identifiable hardship exists or a specific circumstance warrants the granting of arv._ar . • r; Factors to be considered in determining the existence of a hardship shall include, but not be limited to: a. Topography and other site features, b. Availability of alternative site locations, c. Geographic location of property; and d.. Size/magnitude of project being evaluated and availability of co- location. 2. In approving, the cu r �tl�n��t:rrr.eu�t request, the Hearing Examiner may impose such conditions as it deems appropriate to .... - �rw,s.su e corpsistenCy y ith. the objectives of the values, objectives, standards and requirements, of this Chapter, TMC Title 1.8, and the Comprehensive (Land Use Plan. 3.. A petition for any such wa -a ijustmerlll._shall be submitted, in writing, by the applicant with the application for Hearing Examiner review. The petition shall state fully the grounds for the a�er t =er and all of the facts relied upon by the applicant. (Ord. 2251 72, 2009, turd. 2135 §1 (part), 2006) Staff said that the City Attorney has reviewed the proposed language and after some minor changes was comfortable with the language. It is up to the Commission whether they approve these policy changes. Ms. Allen answered several questions from the Commission. In response to a question raised by Commissioner Alford Ms. Allen rescinded her request to delete the following language from paragraph 1, "of the Zoning Code." There was no further testimony. The public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission deliberated. Commissioner Mann was opposed to deleting the following language "the granting of the height waiver, will not be detrimental to the public..." from the first paragraph as requested by the applicant. She said that it gives direction to the Hearing Examiner on what the City is looking for. The Commissioners were in consensus (note: Commissioner Alford was not in the Court Room at present.) Ms. Allen proposed that the paragraph be moved from paragraph one to paragraph two so it could be a Hearing Examiner's decision. Chair Mann asked for a motion accepting the green line document received from the applicant with the following exceptions: 1. The proposal to delete "of the Zoning Code " - denied, language will remain