Laserfiche WebLink
2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />1S <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br />47 <br />48 <br />49 <br />50 <br />51 <br />The 10hnsons stated they have not had a good relationship with the building owner in the <br />past. <br />Chair Klausing asked if other sites have been reviewed and if there is interference. David <br />Weggley, APT, noted APT is licensed by FCC. Ms. Metchnek said there are only two <br />buildings available: The Roseville Towers (they are not interested in antennas), and the <br />Roseville Professional Center. <br />Thomas Paschke noted the City could investigate signal interference remedies with the <br />FCC. Member Cunningham suggested the City contact the regional office of the FCC to <br />test the interference issue. <br />Mr. Johnson asked that interference be resolved prior to establishing another permit. <br />Chair Klausing felt this was beyond the Planning Commission's ability to address. <br />Karla Mosley, adjoining property owner, said nothing is done to resolve issues of existing <br />CUPs (PF 2882-Sprint PCS & PF 2887-US West). The neighbors feel "pushed aside". <br />Thomas Paschke asked that the neighbors call staf£ Chair Klausing noted that the <br />proposal couldn't be tied to past problems in the neighborhood. <br />Chair Klausing closed the hearing. <br />Member Rhody said he was concerned about health and interference issues, but there was <br />no direct evidence. The company is following FCC guidelines; no basis for denying the <br />permit. <br />Member Olson asked staff to check with FCC regarding interference and how they are <br />regulated. <br />Chair Klausing noted the applicant must comply with all e�sting FCC laws in addition to <br />the CUP. <br />Member Olson noted that the e�sting antennas might not be complying with FCC or <br />their CUP. <br />Thomas Paschke noted that there are two providers on the building. APT was given an <br />FCC frequency. Member Cunningham noted FCC monitors e�sting providers. When <br />are they recalibrated? The Planning Commission asked for details by staff follow-up. <br />Motion: Motion by Chair Klausing, second by Member Wilke, to recommend approval <br />of the ATP Minneapolis's request for a conditional use permit to allow the installation of <br />three wireless communication antenna (one on north building fa�ade and two free <br />standing on the building roof at the southeast and southwest corners) and an associated <br />equipment platform and cabinet area by VoiceStream, at the Roseville Professional <br />Building, 2233 Hamline Avenue North, based on the findings in Section 3 of the project <br />report dated January 10, 2001 and with the following conditions: <br />1) The north facing antenna(s) shall be installed on the roof of the Roseville Professional Building <br />(not penthouse or penthouse roof�. <br />