03/08/2006 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Wenger reported that the proposal consisted of installing a number of wireless telecommunication antennas on the rooftop of the Victoria Plaza building. The building is located in a mixed use zoning, therefore business/industrial standards apply. The applicant is required by code to obtain a conditional use permit as the antenna would be a conditional accessory use. Up to three antennas on a building are considered accessory; anything over three requires a conditional use permit. The code further requires that antennas are to be no higher than 15 feet above the rooftop level and that related equipment should be screened within an equipment shelter from the public view. Ms. Schmidt with Sprint was present to review the request to install 6 antennas on the existing rooftop of Victoria Plaza. There are currently three wireless carriers utilizing the rooftop and Sprint would lilce to have their own antennas on the roof. The newly submitted plans show that the 2 antennas which were to be mounted on the west side of the building have now been relocated atop the roof and will be shielded with the same materials to be used on the antennas along the north and south of the rooftop. The height of the antennas will be approximately 9.5 feet tall with a screening material that will match the color and appear to have a textured appearance which matches the existing penthouse. The screening material will appear to be an accessory structure on the roof. The machinery cabinets will be located in the center of the roof with shielding material around them as well. As the building is 167 feet tall equipment cabinets will not be visible to the adjacent buildings/units. Sprint believes that all requirements of the wireless ordinances as well as the conditional use requirements have been met. Mr. Yager questioned if the stairs leading to the cabinets were visible as the plans are not clear. The material being used for the protective panel seams to look like brick, but the material is not called out on the plans as required. He questioned if FAA lighting requirements were met or if additional lighting was needed. He commended the rooftop screening method as it had the best effect and questioned if the entire rooftop could be cleaned up. He questioned why the owner had not required all antenna entities to screen their antennas with the same or a like material. Mr. Laslco questioned how often a worker would be at the site. Ms. Schmidt advised that the railing would not be visible as they are located next to two stairs which would not exceed 18 inches above the roof. The screening material is an FRP material which is fiberglass so that the antennas can transmit through the screen and the material color will match the existing brick color. There are no additional lights needed as FAA requirements have been met. She advised that Sprint believed that they could only address their antennas. Once a month, there would be one worker at the site to perform inspections. Mr. Yager reiterated that he thought the owner should screen all rooftop antennae's. He questioned which height listed was correct, as the plans show the antenna heights to be 9.5 feet tall and the applicants letter states the height of the antennas will not exceed 15 feet. Mr. Conway advised that prior to the antenna regulations going into affect a gentleman secured the leasing rights to the current rooftop, so it is not the owner of the building who is the leasing agent. He further stated that the commission was approving the antenna heights of 9.5 feet as shown on the plans. Ms. Schmidt stated that it was Sprints belief that they could only make provisions designed for their antennas, they do not know if their fiberglass material could be placed around other networks antennas. Mr. Lasko felt that the current owner or applicant should not be required to address preexisting conditions created by other tenants. The current applicant should not be made to deal with other tenants or landlords to accomplish conditions or requirements beyond their proposal. Ms. Wenger didn't thinlc the commission had any way of knowing what adverse impacts could occur from requiring other tenants/carriers to use screening materials. To address 3