7.9. & 7.10. SR 02-18-1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

American Portable Telecom Rezoning & CUP February 18, 1997 Page 4 Planning Commission Meeting At the Planning Commission meetings held on November 26, 1996 and December 19, 1996 there were no comments made during the public hearings. At the February 4, 1997 meeting the owner of Industrial Hardfacing spoke in favor of the project; he felt that it would provide an economic benefit to his company and pointed out that there was no opposition voiced at any of the public hearings. The first 2 meetings were spent becoming educated regarding the PCS cellular industry and examining possible alternatives to the proposed Industrial Hardfacing site. A great deal of time was spent exploring the various options relating to co- locating on existing towers. The applicant analyzed several alternative sites including the existing AT&T tower, the towers on County Road 33 and the City water tower near Elk Park Center. Based on their coverage needs none of these sites alone could provide the coverage they need. Another possible alternative was examined, co-locating on the AT&T tower and the County Road 33 tower. This alternative was not seriously considered by the applicant because of cost constraints. After looking at the co-location options, the discussion came back to the proposed site. This site would meet APT's coverage and cost requirements and would also provide a second co-location possibility for the next PCS provider that wishes to set up a cell in the city. However there is no guarantee that the proposed APT site will be acceptable for the next provider that wishes to locate a tower in Elk River. There was concern expressed by the Commission about controlling future placement of cellular towers and how the city can encourage co-location. It was pointed out by the applicant that it is cheaper for a cellular provider to set up a co-location cell than it is to start from scratch. It is one of the first options looked at after a provider determines that a tower is needed in a community. A second means to encourage co-location would be to make it easier to co-locate. This could be accomplished by avoiding the conditional use permit process and require only a building permit and site plan review for antennas that will be placed on existing towers. This would expedite the review process by several months and enable the providers to set up their antenna cells at an earlier date. The Planning Commission also discussed the possibility of implementing a moratorium on new cellular towers. The AT&T application and the APT application brought to light some areas of the zoning code relating to antenna towers that need to be reviewed and possibly updated. It was felt that a moratorium on new antenna towers would allow time to review the existing s:XplanningXscottXcu9626cc.doc