pf09-005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

--•. — 119 on the existing false fa�ade or the building. The third antenna would be located on the �2o proposed eyuipment platform and face west off the roof. �2� 5.4 Equipment necessary for operation of the site includes a 10 foot by 20 foot raised �22 platform on which equipment racks would be installed. The platform also includes �2s screening from the west, north, and south via an attached screen wall. �2a 5.5 The Planning Division has concluded that there are no City-owned or privately-owned � 25 towers that would support additional telecommunication devices in the area, therefore the �26 applicants have sought a private site to meet growing customer demand in the area. 127 6.0 STAFF COMMENTS �28 6.1 The Planning Division has concluded that there are conflicting requirements within this �2Q section of the Code. On one hand, private telecommunication device are not permitted �30 on residential zoned property, and on the other hand, such devises are supported on 131 church spires, belfries, cupolas and water towers, which have traditionally been in 132 residential zones. 133 134 135 136 1.s � 138 6.2 The Planning Division's review of exempted structures concludes a number of these structures are located in non-business zones such as most churches and the water tower which are both zoned single-family residence and a number of apartment/housing complexes throughout Roseville have varying residential zones. Also, the City Hall Campus had, until recently, a zoning of single family residence, which site includes a 150 foot tall tower albeit approved through the Conditional Use process. 139 6.3 Further, although the Code allows for public towers, these are rare, can only be on public �ao land, and tend to be more controversial than private sites. To say the least, it is difficult 141 to match a telecommunication need with a potential public opportunity site. It also seems �a2 short sighted that a municipality be afforded the conditional use process, but the private �4� market, who knows its needs much better, cannot. �4� 6.4 The Planning Division has reviewed the approved PUD for College Properties to �a5 determine whether such devices were prohibited (they were not) or whether future 146 allowance was granted for such device installation (it was not). As a result, the Division �ai determined that the PUD could be amended to allow such devices with specific �4� conditions. �4Q 6.5 Lastly, the Planning Division believes people's reliance on telecommunication �5o technology will continue to increase, which will reyuire careful consideration of options �5� supporting telecommunication device installation and/or towers within our municipal �,� boundaries. 15:s 154 155 156 15? 158 � ��, � F; � 6.6 When considering this request, the Planning Division discussed what type of impact such devices could pose if allowed to be installed as proposed. The Division concluded that prevailing scientific research has determined that antennas do not have harmful emissions. Cell towers and equipment have also not caused interference in other forms of receiving or transmitting devices. Therefore the Division's conclusion was that the only potential impact would be visual or aesthetic. 6.7 In.review of the proposal, the two pole antenna arrays will be installed near the building wall, extending slightly above the false roof, while the third antenna will be attached to PF09-005 RCA 042009 (4).doc Page 4 of 5