PC 092210 Special Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Soo replied that these are possible options. She added that at that time, staff knew that T-Mobile had a tower on the building and asked Verizon to explore options to co-locate. She stated that she was not certain if the applicant had explored the option or contacted the property owner. Commissioner Narum stated that she felt this could be an option and voiced the need for more information, indicating she was not satisfied with the visuals. She noted that it is important to see what the tower looks like from the neighborhoods and from different points in the City where residents would be looking at it and not where people driving through the town on I-680. She added that she can appreciate getting the best signal; however, there is not enough data to say other options do not make sense. She requested a diagram showing coverage area and what the impact of moving it to one of the locations to the south might be, and why it would not work, whether it be because the property owner is not interested or coverage would be affected. She suggested continuing the item to get this information. Commissioner Pearce agreed, given the level of neighborhood concern. She asked for more concrete information and in writing that this is absolutely the only viable location. Chair Olson inquired if the neighbors would be looking at a tree on top of the building or a naked cell tower, assuming a cell tower is co-located on the building. Ms. Stern replied that the City has requirements that facilities on the tops of buildings be screened. Commissioner Narum noted that there were fat flag poles similar to the one on Main Street and a Public Storage on Stoneridge Drive. Ms. Stern stated that the City’s preference is not to be able to see it and have it screened on the roof of a building. She agreed, however, that there were alternatives. Commissioner Pearce moved to continue PAP-148 and to require the applicant to provide coverage maps contrasting the coverage at the T-Mobile location versus the pump station location and a letter signed by the property owners of alternative buildings that the location is not available or that the location does not meet requirements, with quantitative information that has been developed by the RF Engineer. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS RE-OPENED. Mr. Lobaugh stated that they had already supplied coverage maps which he could show again for the proposed site. He added that staff had requested they do another set of coverage maps for the alternative site. As he had explained earlier, he requested this of Mr. Iachella, who stated that there would not be a significant difference in what the coverage map would show. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 22, 2010 Page 10 of 23