pm_010110 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Thomas Paschke noted the uses do not create or hinder traffic; the units and cabinets can be painted to match the existing building color; there appears to be no health, safety, or welfare impacts and the use complies with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommended approval to allow installation of the antenna. Chair Klausing asked if the "leasing sign" on the penthouse was legal. Staff has worked with the owner to reduce the size to meet the Code. Wendy Metchnek, APT representative, explained that condition #4.1 must be changed or removed to be installed on a structure support apparatus placed on the rooftop rather than on the north wall of the penthouse. Chair Klausing asked why the antenna structure could not be set back from the edge of the building (the building blocks a part of the reception area). Member Wilke asked if antennas could be placed on the roof of the penthouse. Chair Klausing said he preferred white painted surfaces nearer the existing walls. Member Cunningham asked for comment from applicants regarding Ramsey County Library interference. (The frequency is designated per carrier and should not be a problem). Ms. Metchnek said eventually there would be six (up from four) equipment cabinets on the roof. They will not be seen at grade from the property line. All units (30" wide, 40" long, 5 feet high) should be painted to match the existing building walls. Member Cunningham asked if the roof could hold the additional weight. An APT structural engineer will design the load to meet roof capacity. Willard Johnson, 1371 Sandhurst Drive, asked for detailed information. He noted other CUPs on this site have created problems. Are there other buildings that could be used? The antennas now in place have affected the use of televisions in the adjoining blocks. The Johnsons stated they have not had a good relationship with the building owner in the past. Chair Klausing asked if other sites have been reviewed and if there is interference. David Weggley, APT, noted APT is licensed by FCC. Ms. Metchnek said there are only two buildings available: The Roseville Towers (they are not interested in antennas), and the Roseville Professional Center. Thomas Paschke noted the City could investigate signal interference remedies with the FCC. Member Cunningham suggested the City contact the regional office of the FCC to test the interference issue. Mr. Johnson asked that interference be resolved prior to establishing another permit. Chair Klausing felt this was beyond the Planning Commission's ability to address. Karla Mosley, adjoining property owner, said nothing is done to resolve issues of existing CUPs (PF 2882-Sprint PCS & PF 2887-US West). The neighbors feel "pushed aside". Thomas Paschke asked that the neighbors call staff. Chair Klausing noted that the proposal couldn't be tied to past problems in the neighborhood. Chair Klausing closed the hearing. Member Rhody said he was concerned about health and interference issues, but there was no direct evidence. The company is following FCC guidelines; no basis for denying the permit. Member Olson asked staff to check with FCC regarding interference and how they are regulated. Chair Klausing noted the applicant must comply with all existing FCC laws in addition to the CUP. Member Olson noted that the existing antennas might not be complying with FCC or their CUP. Thomas Paschke noted that there are two providers on the building. APT was given an FCC frequency. Member Cunningham noted FCC monitors existing providers. When are they recalibrated? The Planning Commission asked for