Laserfiche WebLink
Approved <br /> Kari Brown, KTB Consulting, representing T Mobile approached the commission. She <br /> stated that the engineer will be state certified and the structural engineer will go to the site <br /> and design the tower specifically for that location. T Mobile is requesting that condition <br /> number 3 be modified so that they can add antennas and lines to the main antenna. As <br /> technology improves there is a need to change out the antennas and it would be <br /> burdensome to come in for a special use permit each time this is done. If a co-locator is <br /> added it would have to be put in at a different height within the one hundred foot pole and <br /> they would understand the request of the special use permit. <br /> Gundlach replied that the intent of condition number 3 was not if they would be replacing <br /> equipment, but it was intended if they were adding equipment or if they were adding a <br /> co-locator. If the applicant was to place an addition cabinet or antenna, they would have <br /> to come back for a special use permit to show that they are meeting the set back <br /> guidelines. <br /> Josh Mathews, Wireless Engineer for T Mobile, stated that the objection to number three <br /> is that it's overly broad and the company does maintenance on a monthly basis, the <br /> equipment in the cabinets are changed frequently. Baker inquired if the applicants would <br /> feel more comfortable if the language was changed to "if anytime modifications are made <br /> to the tower or a co-locator is installed a special use permit would be required." Mathews <br /> replied that it was his understanding that a co-locator would already have to pull a special <br /> use permit. He also asked for a definition of"modification". He inquired if changing an <br /> antenna from one model to another or a faulty antenna would trigger a special use permit. <br /> Baker inquired if an additional antenna would affect the drop load radius. Mathews <br /> replied that while he was not a structural engineer the drop radius and the loading of the <br /> tower are specified to the maximum of the wind loading as if it is fully loaded. <br /> Schiferl recommended that the Commission approve the application as it is and that <br /> would allow staff and the applicant to work through this issue and then present it to the <br /> Council. Mathews stated that all of the leased area will be screened and does meet all the <br /> setback guidelines and so he does not understand how adding a cabinet or additional <br /> equipment would trigger a special use permit. <br /> Fernelius stated that the site plan does show potential future impacts, where future <br /> equipment would be located and future antenna additions. If this site plan changes <br /> drastically or if they decide to build outside of the fenced in area then they would have to <br /> come back for a special use permit. Baker replied that the structural engineer would have <br /> to sign off on the additional towers. Fernelius replied that he would. Mathews stated that <br /> the structural engineer will take into account any future antennas that may be placed on <br /> the tower. <br /> Gundlach suggested striking the existing language of condition number three, but adding <br /> "changes to the approved site plan would require review of an additional special use <br /> Page 10 of 13 <br />