Laserfiche WebLink
�� on the existing false fa�ade or the building. The third antenna would be located on the <br />�� proposed equipment platform and face west off the roof. <br />�� 5.4 Equipment necessary for operation of the site includes a 10 foot by 20 foot raised <br />�� platform on which equipment racks would be installed. The platform also includes <br />�� screening from the west, north, and south via an attached screen wall. <br />�� 5.5 The Planning Division has concluded that there are no City-owned or privately-owned <br />�� towers that would support additional telecommunication devices in the area, therefore the <br />�� applicants have sought a private site to meet growing customer demand in the area. <br />1 � 6.O STAFF COMMENTS <br />�� 6.1 The Planning Division has concluded that there are conflicting requirements within this <br />�� section of the Code. On one hand, private telecommunication device are not permitted <br />�: on residential zoned property, and on the other hand, such devises are supported on <br />�: church spires, belfries, cupolas and water towers, which have traditionally been in <br />�: residential zones. <br />�: 6.2 The Planning Division's review of exempted structures concludes a number of these <br />�: structures are located in non-business zones such as most churches and the water tower <br />�: which are both zoned single-family residence and a number of apartmentlhousing <br />�: complexes throughout Roseville have varying residential zones. Also, the City Hall <br />�: Campus had, until recently, a zoning of single family residence, which site includes a 150 <br />�: foot tall tower albeit approved through the Conditional Use process. <br />�: 6.3 Further, although the Code allows for public towers, these are rare, can only be on public <br />�� land, and tend to be more controversial than private sites. To say the least, it is difficult <br />�� to match a telecommunication need with a potential public opportunity site. It also seems <br />�� short sighted that a municipality be afforded the conditional use process, but the private <br />�� market, who knows its needs much better, cannot. <br />�� 6.4 The Planning Division has reviewed the approved PUD for College Properties to <br />�� determine whether such devices were prohibited (they were not) or whether future <br />�� allowance was granted for such device installation (it was not) . As a result, the Division <br />�� determined that the PUD could be amended to allow such devices with specific <br />� � conditions. <br />�� 6.5 Lastly, the Planning Division believes people's reliance on telecommunication <br />� 4 technology will continue to increase, which will require careful consideration of options <br />� 4 supporting telecommunication device installation and/or towers within our municipal <br />� 4 boundaries. <br />� 4 6.6 When considering this request, the Planning Division discussed what type of impact such <br />� 4 devices could pose if allowed to be installed as proposed. The Division concluded that <br />� 4 prevailing scientific research has determined that antennas do not have harmful <br />� 4 emissions. Cell towers and equipment have also not caused interference in other forms of <br />� 4 receiving or transmitting devices. Therefore the Division's conclusion was that the only <br />� 4 potential impact would be visual or aesthetic. <br />� 4 6.7 In review of the proposal, the two pole antenna arrays will be installed near the building <br />� F wall, extending slightly above the false roof, while the third antenna will be attached to <br />the equipment screening. This design has a blending effect (appearance that of a vent) , <br />PF09-005_RCA_042009 (4).doc <br />Page 4 of 5 <br />