Laserfiche WebLink
<br />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 /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 />I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\Minutes\2006\05-16-2006 MINUTES.doc Page 10 of 13 <br /> <br />