CCP 04-22-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Approved deemed by the Council as a public benefit, since a larger area would be covered by the siren. • The Council approved the second tower after they determined that they could not discriminate between carriers, since the other tower was already in the park. O'Brien asked staff why the Park and Recreation Commission approved the application. Scott Budzynski, Park and Recreation Commission, stated the Commission reviewed the history of how the two cell towers were placed in Creek View Park and used those standards to approve this tower. They believe that by adding a light to the tower it would light the trail and increase the safety of the area. Zisla asked if PREC saw any conflict with the carver using recreational land for the tower. Budzynski replied that they did not, since the land right next to the building is a drainage area and is not usable for recreation purposes. Schiferl asked staff for a brief overview of the Federal Telecommunications Act and what the local municipalities' limitations are for the approval or denial for cell phone towers. Gundlach replied that the Federal Telecommunications Act was adopted in 1996, which states that Cities must provide land and zoning regulations to support these towers. She added that the Zoning Code does allow for towers in the industrial district and specially permitted in residential districts. One standard that is used by the City is the fall zone set back, which is determined by the height of the tower. For example, an eighty -foot tall tower would have an eighty -foot set back. The code does allow the set back to be reduced by thirty-three percent when a tower is engineered to collapse upon it self. The setback is to the property line, not to any other specific structures. She added that all of the performance related matters on this application have been met. Schiferl asked if staff knew of the percentage of cell towers that have collapsed. Gundlach • replied that she does not know the percentage, but added that these towers are placed in a concrete footing that is thirty feet deep and has never heard of a tower falling. Howard asked if staff had proof that the tower would be engineered and constructed as a collapsible tower. Gundlach replied that the tower would be required to pull a building permit, at that time they would have to submit engineered plans showing how the structure would collapse. Paul Harrington, Carlson and Harrington, approached the Commission. He stated that his client, T -Mobile, has asked that he not discuss any project specifics until the Council has made their policy decision, but he would address some of the general questions. He added that the towers are engineered to with stand one hundred mile an hour straight-line winds and if the winds exceed that the tower will deflect, which means the winds would have to be significantly greater than that to make the tower collapse. Howard asked if the applicant could clarify why they would want to use public land versus private land. Harrington replied that it is because of the set back and in residential areas those set backs can be met in parks. Baker inquired if Harrington could address the health concerns that have been raised by several citizens in letters that were received by the Commission. Harrington replied that the FCC and FDA regulate the frequencies that they may operate at and have stated that those frequencies are not harmful. Joanne Morris, 1405 291h Ave NW, opposes the tower due to the potential health risks and does not want to expose any children playing at the park to those risks. • Gene Bujalski, 2901 16th Street NW, opposes a commercial use in any public park and opposes the tower due to the potential health risks.