Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 10/31/1996BUILDING REVIEW BOARD REGULAR MEETING October 31, 1996 1:00PM II Council Liaison: Ann Azari II Staff Liaison: Felix Lee II Chairperson: Mike Sutton 490-2161(w) 484-1849(h) The annual meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, October 31, 1996 in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building. The following members were present: Brown, Cotterman, Sutton, Meleski, Hansch, Fisher. Board members absent: Kreul-Froseth Staff members present: Felix Lee, Building & Zoning Director Elain Radford, Building & Zoning Admin. Support Carol Goff, Building & Zoning Admin. Support The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Sutton. The September 1996 minutes were approved. APPEALS: 1. Joe Ventola, Western Wireless representative. TWR, Vern Jackson, Class AC (conditional), approved. Joe Ventola introduced himself as the representative of Western Wireless PCS, a telecommunications firm erecting a network of cellular sites along the front range including Fort Collins. The two contractors represented at BRB today, TWR and Microwave Tower Service, are being hired to construct the towers in the Fort Collins area because Western Wireless has worked with them in the past and knows their reputations and abilities. There was some confusion on their part as to the type of license needed for this type of work and the process required for obtaining the license. Ventola requested that in the future the licensing process be made an administrative process rather than coming before the BRB. A problem they have is that presumably these two contractors will be able to get their licenses here in Fort Collins, however, they may need to bring in additional contractors as construction proceeds and a delay in obtaining licensing may seriously • BRB October 31, 1996 Page 2 impede their progress here in Fort Collins. Fort Collins is a very important market to them. Ventola stated he would be happy to answer any questions about the types of contractors Western Wireless will use or the types of projects that they're trying to build. He again requested that in the future the Board consider making this an administrative process to grant these conditional licenses. Board member Sutton asked how many contractors does Western Wireless anticipate using in the future. Ventola responded that they anticipate using only these two contractors because they have worked with them in the past, they have national reputations and know the work. He said their anticipated start up date is February 1, 1997 and projects go rather slow at first then, within a month or two before everything needs to be turned on, there is a big hurry to get everything done. At that point additional contractors may be brought on board, however, they don't anticipate more than a few. Ventola pointed out that he, obviously, can't speak for their competitors who may use other contractors. He stated that the two contractors represented today are under exclusivity clauses and won't be used by competitors. Board member Cotterman asked Mr. Ventola if he is with Western Wireless company. Ventola stated that he is not an employee of Western Wireless. He has his own consulting firm called Modus Management and is here to represent the interest of Western Wireless. Cotterman asked what Western Wireless does specifically. Ventola explained that Western has primarily in the past been a provider in rural areas. He noted that with the telecommunications deregulation at the Federal level this year they were awarded several contracts at major metropolitan areas. Ventola explained that Fort Collins is actually part of the license granted for what is called the Denver area and is part of the Denver cellular network. Cotterman asked if Fort Collins would see other companies doing what Western Wireless is doing. Ventola replied that he would anticipate this is so. He clarified again that he cannot 11 BRB October 31, 1996 Page 3 speak for their competitors. He said there are several companies working on projects in the Denver area. If they have not yet applied for permits in Fort Collins, he feels it's just a matter of time before they do. Cotterman asked if he or his company gets permission from various landowners to put up a tower, then hires contractors to do the work. Ventola stated that is correct. Cotterman asked if BRB will have to deal with other companies like Mr.Ventola's consulting firm and the contractors they hire. He asked if there may be ten or twenty different contractors who may actually do the work. Ventola stated that he imagines that is fairly accurate. Board member Meleski asked if Mr. Ventola would tell them specifically about the towers. Ventola explained that he realizes most people imagine a very large lattice tower that is very obtrusive but it is a rarity for them to erect that sort of structure. He noted that because of cost and aesthetic considerations, they typically like to put electronic units and panel antennas on top of existing buildings where possible. Ventola defined the panels themselves as relatively small flat structures a few feet on each side. The electronics are housed in equipment cabinets that can also vary in size but usually don't get over 6 feet by 6 feet. He said that typically there are two of these on a site. They can either go up on the roof of a building or down on the ground surrounded by a fence. Occasionally, they put up what are called monopole towers. These are single pole structures, not lattice towers, on a drilled peer foundation. These can be anywhere in heights from 30 to 150 feet based on needs for line of site for the radio frequency and on zoning restrictions. According to Ventola, a typical height is about 80 feet and this is the exception. They do occasionally put up a lattice tower when the zoning and the aesthetics allow it. This typically happens in rural areas not in metropolitan areas. He noted another option is to co -locate on an existing facility. An example is water tanks, where they can mount antennas to the legs. He stated that where there is an existing lattice tower for their competitor, they can co -locate their antenna on that facility. BRB October 31, 1996 Page 4 Ventola stated that the representative from TWR can explain their expertise and doing all these types of facilities. Meleski asked how contractors are being treated in other cities. What does Denver require of the contractors represented here today? Ventola explained that both contractors are licensed in Denver. One is licensed as a Class B and the other is licensed as Class D, a specialty contractor that allows them to do structural steel. He noted that with agreement from the Denver building department, they've included all the peripheral things that go along with building these facilities. Meleski asked if additional crews are hired, will they have a Class B license? Ventola stated that presumably they could but they prefer to go with companies they know and have worked with in the past. There are other contractors nationally that do this same type of work. Meleski asked if they would be licensed. Ventola responded that these companies would be coming into Colorado without a current Colorado license and would have to go through the licensing process. He said their concern is that if a shortfall is in Fort Collins and needed additional contractors, they would need them to be able to get licenses quickly. Sutton asked how many projects do they anticipate in Fort Collins. Ventola stated that in the city there would be about ten and in Larimer County there would be about 30-40. Sutton asked if the towers would be mostly the monopole type. Ventola replied that in the city of Fort Collins they would be mostly rooftop and he doesn't know exactly where the sites are yet. He said they select a search range, an area in which they know they need coverage, and identify typically three to five sites within that search range. They then ask the city about the zoning and ask the property owners about the lease, etc. He said the next step is to trim those three to five sites down to a prime site. At that point they start producing construction documents. BR13 October 31, 1996 Page 5 Sutton asked if the primary focus of these towers is to get blanket coverage for a cellular network. Ventola stated yes and that the correct term is now PCS, personal communication systems and that it is cellular in the sense that each of these sites covers a certain area or cell. He said the cells have to overlap so there is very stringent criteria on the location of these and within a cell there could be a number of locations. He noted there is a whole department that does the engineering on the technicalities and radio frequency information. Sutton asked who is the Western Wireless customer. Ventola explained that the end user would be anyone who uses cellular communications equipment. He noted that Western Wireless is not unlike AT&T Wireless. Cotterman asked if there would ever be a time when these towers would receive signals from satellites. Ventola replied that the question is beyond his expertise and explained that he is the local representative hired to show them around the front range. He noted that this is a step up from the cellular facilities in use today. Cotterman stated that TWR, represented by Vern Jackson, has built some very big towers. Some have been 435 feet, 500 feet, and 350 feet. He asked if they could anticipate anything of this magnitude in Fort Collins. Ventola replied that while their contractors are experienced with a wide variety of installations, it does not mean that Western Wireless is asking them to erect large towers. He stated they are, of course, complying with the new codes regarding telecommunications facilities and prefer to keep costs down by locating on existing towers on existing buildings. He indicated they do not want to put up a 300 foot lattice tower that exceeds their needs because of the expense. He stated that he could not say for sure that they don't have any 300 foot towers on the drawing board, but he can assure us that as a part of the plan review process that the city goes through, they will meet all local codes. BRB October 31, 1996 Page 6 Sutton stated that when he asks BRB for an administrative decision on this, he is asking that they trust Western Wireless. He said the company represented by Mr. Ventola is going to require us to have some level of trust in the people that are sent here. Ventola responded that rather than asking BRB to trust a company they have never heard of until today, he is asking that they trust their building director. He stated he is more than happy to submit full information on any contractors they might retain to Mr. Lee's office and have him go through an administrative process of deciding whether their contractors meet requirements and experience to do these type of facilities. Board member Brown stated that a part of the problem the BRB has is that the city does not have a class that the type of work they are doing fits into, except for the Class A license. Brown assumed that contractors may not want to take that test or qualify for that license. Ventola asked if it is correct that most contractors don't have to take a test, if they can produce sufficient documentation of licensing in other areas. Building administrator Lee replied that this is correct and explained that there is an examination waiver provision with five years of experience in the category of license that the applicant is seeking. Ventola stated that their contractors currently have a couple of avenues open to them, all of which point toward getting a Class A license. He said that providing the credentials that meet the requirements of the Class A license would be a stretch for their contractors because the contractors do not build high rise buildings. They build only telecommunication tower structures. He noted that after his conversations with Mr. Lee, he realized there is a limitation in the codes about the classifications of licenses. He requested that the BRB find a way to make the licensing an administrative process so the building director has the authority to grant these conditional licenses. Sutton confirmed that BRB could grant such authority to the building director except the BRB wants contractors to initially be presented before the Board. He said that if the projects fall within the parameters discussed today and the documentation presented is similar to documentation accepted by BRB today, the building director could make the decision to grant a license. He said they expect to go through this same process for BRB October 31, 1996 Page 7 each company who wants to erect telecommunication towers in Fort Collins. Meleski asked for clarification on the fact that the building of towers, of any height, falls under the "M" category in the city's licensing procedures and that the Class E supervisory certificate procedures state "buildings" over five stories.. Lee stated that the M category includes towers of any height and the Class B license mentions building or structure. Cotterman stated that the BRB would have difficulty in coming up with a set of criteria that could be passed to the building administrator so he could make the licensing decision regarding such structures. He asked if Mr. Ventola had information from other cities as to criteria. Ventola responded that this has not come up in other cities. He asked that BRB lean more on the director's opinion of whether they've done these types of facilities in the past. He noted that their contractors have extensive experience all around the world in doing this type of work. Sutton stated that if a Class A conditional license is granted for this type of work, BRB will rely on the language of our licensing ordinance that requires evidence of expertise in this area. Sutton said that as long as evidence is presented to BRB in the manner in which it was presented today, he would have no problem with the building administrator making that decision. Meleski asked Lee, based upon the information and description of these structures presented today, where a group of structures not more than 12 feet high would fall into the supervisor's certificate category. Lee stated the Class D-2 category would cover such structures. Meleski asked if the main criteria BRB is looking at is height. Lee responded that maybe it is a matter of degree and scale. Sutton stated that if strictly height is being discussed, then it is the project and not a license that is an issue. He said the Class A is the unlimited license and it is easy for BRB to define that as a conditional Class A license. He believes further that towers BRB October 31, 1996 Page 8 do not fall within the Class D-2 category. Meleski pointed out that if competitors only constructed towers under a height that would qualify for a lower class supervisor's certificate, then the licensing process would automatically be through the building administrator. Sutton asked for the definition of the Class D-2 license. Lee defined the Class D-2 license as pertaining to residential additions and garages. Sutton responded that the Class D-2 license then does not have anything to do with height. Lee explained that a 12 foot height structure is in the same scale as a residential structure and it is a Group M structure under the building code. Sutton asked that if someone wanted to put a TV antenna on top of their house, do they need to get a permit to do that. Lee replied that they don't. Brown asked if a Class C conditional would be the license since towers is what BRB is trying to authorize. Or is there a miscellaneous license? Sutton responded that the Class C is specific to multi -family housing and there is not a miscellaneous license. Lee stated that towers are classified in the building codes as a Group M. The license ordinance makes reference to classification of structures and the Group M basically refers to garages and agricultural buildings. Sutton reminded the Board that since the BRB is defining what the "conditional" definition is, then it is almost semantic as to the classification assigned. He said that because the Class A license is unlimited, BRB only has to set the limitation of it being a conditional license. Meleski stated that it seems the simplest thing to do ultimately, would be to have a new license classification that applies to towers. If this could be accomplished quickly, it might be the most appropriate way to handle this licensing. BRB October 31, 1996 Page 9 Ventola encouraged the BRB to maintain maximum flexibility for their staff. He stated that Denver created another category for each situation that was not quite defined in existing contractor licensing procedures and ended up with about 49 different license classifications, which proved quite unwieldy. He said most contractors fall under existing categories and only a few don't, and that it is much easier for staff to issue a license with limitations than to go before City Council and ask for a new classification each time. He said that Denver is now reversing their process and is now down to about 27 licenses. Cotterman reminded BRB that the building administrator needs some kind of criteria on which to make a judgment. Sutton advised BRB to keep the criteria the same as what is already established for the Class A license. If this proves to be the wrong direction, then BRB can do something about it. Cotterman responded that the contractors will not be able to meet the criteria for the Class A license. Sutton replied that the contractors would be able to provide at least five commensurate projects for the license granted. He said the BRB can use that same language in the ordinance to give direction to the building administrator and that contractors would have to come up with the same body of information specifically directed toward communication tower construction. Sutton also commented that with the documentation presented today from the two companies applying for license, he feels confident that they have the know how to construct communication towers. He said that same kind of documentation is what the building administrator could look at to make a licensing decision. Lee stated that he understands what BRB is seeking regarding the construction of communication towers and would feel comfortable with this type of documentation. Brown asked for clarification that BRB wants to grant a Class A conditional license for construction of communication towers only. Ventola offered to define telecommunication facilities which is what they are wanting to construct and that many sites don't have a tower. He said there is accessory construction that sometimes goes along with the towers to meet zoning codes, screening, etc. BRB October 31, 1996 Page 10 Sutton stated that he would expect the building administrator to be able to discriminate the same as he does on qualifications presented for other licenses and be able to look at a telecommunication facility and discern whether it is too tall or that it meets other applicable criteria. Lee responded that any tower structure like these would have to meet engineering criteria for windload, etc. Cotterman requested that criteria be put in writing. Lee offered to draft the criteria for BRB to look at the next Board meeting in November. He suggested something that illustrates his understanding for BRB approval. Meleski asked Ventola if this would meet with their schedule because it is 30 days from now. Ventola stated that if the issue is resolved 30 days from now that would be fine. Lee recommended that BRB make a decision today regarding the two contractors present. TWR representative, Vern Norman, stepped forward to add some insight for better understanding of what his company does. He passed out photographs to Board members for their review. Norman stated that he could not imagine any towers over 80 feet, at the most, if they cannot use building tops. He stated that most towers would be in the range of 40 feet to 50 feet. He verified the qualifications of TWR's experience worldwide and ability to construct these towers. He stated that TWR is very aware of environmental issues and guaranteed that they will always clean-up any site after construction. Sutton asked Norman about the photos showing sites with utility buildings on them. Norman explained that old cellular equipment used to require a fairly large building to hold the telecommunication equipment in it. He said the new BTS cabinets will be about seven to eight feet tall and, depending on the platform they sit on, will be approximately seven feet long and three feet wide. He noted further that will be the telecommunication portion except for the monopole. Norman said they are fairly small now which is why they can be placed on rooftops and hidden as much as possible. He stated that almost all sites have minimal construction, though, there may be times when the larger concrete utility buildings may be needed. BRB October 31, 1996 Page 11 Sutton asked if the structures are modular prefabs. Norman responded that they are and TWR cranes them in. Cotterman asked Norman about his relationship to George Jackson. Norman stated that George Jackson is his boss and the owner of TWR. Norman clarified that his position is the project manager and he will oversee the projects in Colorado. Meleski asked Norman if he will be the one granted the supervisor's certificate. Norman replied that his understanding is that with the size of this project there may be more than one project manager. Sutton stated that any project manager would have to go through the same process of applying and being approved for the license. Meleski asked for clarification on whether BRB will approve licenses for the two companies present and if the building administrator will present a strict definition of the Class A conditional license. Brown stated that he understands the two companies want to be granted the conditional license and will still need someone to qualify for the supervisor's certificate. Sutton stated that before these companies can start construction, they are required to submit who will be the on -site supervisor, their qualifications, and their company's qualifications. Sutton asked if City Council needs to approve the Class A conditional license. Lee responded that it is within BRB's purview to grant specific exemptions and waivers based upon the criteria presented. BRB has the authority, through the building administrator, to grant variances. Motion was made to have the building administrator grant the Class A conditional license for these two companies present based upon their applications and that a conditional Class A supervisory certificate to be granted to a representative of TWR upon submittal of qualified documentation to the building administrator. Mr. Kevin Paswalk will be • BRB October 31, 1996 Page 12 granted a conditional supervisory certificate as the representative for Microwave Tower Services, Inc. Building administrator Lee will submit to the Board in writing guidelines and criteria required for the Class A Conditional license. YEAS: Brown, Cotterman, Sutton, Meleski, Hansch Nays: none The Board discussed the size of the utility buildings that go with the towers and requested a size limitation be included as part of the conditional license. The Board requested that Lee recommend criteria for the Class A conditional license and submit for their review before the next meeting on November 21, 1996. OTHER BUSINESS: A. 1997 Work Plan Sutton reminded BRB that the code review will be coming up around mid -spring. Sutton stated that he reviewed the enclosed 1997 Work Plan draft and feels it is in alignment with what BRB is doing. Lee requested any other comments be submitted to him before next BRB meeting. The Work Plan needs to be approved in the November 21, 1996 meeting. B. November 21, 1996 meeting approved. BRB needs to meet in November to discuss and approve building administrator Lee's criteria and guidelines for the Class A Conditional license and to give approval to the 1997 Work Plan. C. December BRB meeting approved to be scheduled on Thursday, December 19, 1996. D. 1997 BRB meetings for November and December: Because BRB regular meetings are scheduled for the last Thursday of each month, the November and December meetings will always fall on Thanksgiving Day in November and during Christmas week. BRB approved the meetings for these months always be on the Thursday before the holiday: November 20, 1997 - BRB scheduled December 18, 1997 - BRB scheduled