10-17-00 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Calvin Vogelman, Verizon, added there are dramatic variations in service and coverage between the 90 ft. and 120 ft. pole. Zisla asked if constructing two poles of reduced heights at different locations would achieve Verizon’s goals. Vogelman said constructing poles at different sites would require seeking locations within residential or park locations which Verizon does not support. Littlejohn added that Verizon recommends locations within industrial districts or railroad tracks to avoid affecting the public. Schiferl asked if a monopole tower could be built upon an existing building. Vogelman said this type of structure would be a guide tower which is less desirable and more difficult to find interested landlords to allow a tower on top of their building. In regards to setbacks, Littlejohn added that the architects altered the location so that setbacks are met on three sides, and only the southerly setback requires a variance. The pole is engineered to ensure the pole bends 40 ft. from the top in the event of wind. Baker asked if each cellular service provider’s equipment is unique to competitor’s frequencies. Vogelman verified that equipment is unique and the smallest allowed distance between antennas is 10-20 feet vertically and 30-40 feet horizontally. Baker asked if it is common occurrence for competing providers to co-habitat on one site. Littlejohn said Verizon does co-locate sites where competitors exist, but in this case, the height of the existing pole is 90 ft. O’Brien asked if it is possible for another company to interface between antennas. Vogelman said interfacing could create bad mixing and communication failure. O’Brien confirmed there have been no discussion between Sprint and Verizon regarding relocation of antennas or monopole usage. There were no comments from the audience. CLOSE THE HEARING Motion by Schmitz, seconded by Schopf, to . 5 Ayes - 0 Nays, Motion Carried. Schiferl noted concern with granting a variance when the current zoning code does not provide adequate control over such uses. Teague was directed to speak to Council regarding creation of an ordinance amendment. WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT THE Motion by O’Brien, seconded by Schmitz, to RESOLUTIONS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF SP00-14 AND VN00-7. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays, Motion Carried. Teague presented a request by Qwest Communications for a special use permit and site plan to convert an th existing metal storage building to a maintenance garage located at 100 9 Ave. SW. There will be no noticeable difference in the use of the properties, no traffic generated by the use, and no additional outside storage. Prior to this request, Qwest committed to significant investment in the property by upgrading the parking lot, remodeling interior, construction of a retention pond, and landscaping. The City Forester recommended minor adjustments to the landscape plan. The Building Official found that all codes have been adhered to. Staff recommends approval. Joe Stroblonski, Qwest architect, explained this is a very desirable upgrade to the operation and will not create drastic changes to adjacent properties. There were no comments from the audience. CLOSE THE HEARING Motion by Schopf, seconded by Schiferl, to . 5 Ayes - 0 Nays, Motion Carried.