Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 December 19, 1996 • Peter Coyle, of Larkin, Hoffman, Daly, Lindgren Lawfirm, was present to represent the applicant, American Portable Telecom (APT). Mr. Coyle noted American Portable Telecom is now also known as Aerial Communications through marketing change. Mr. Jeff Peterson, structural engineer, and Mr. Ineet, radio frequency engineer, were also present to represent APT. Mr. Coyle explained the FCC has been sanctioned to build the next generation wireless telephone communication service. APT has a contract with the FCC to commence operations by the spring of 1997. Mr. Coyle feels the city has the authority to fulfill zoning and planning responsibilities, but the city does not have the authority to discriminate against a company trying to erect a facility nor impede or prohibit the installation of services. He feels the Planning Commission is exceeding its authority in forcing APT to follow a design scenario which is based on subjective notion of radio frequency coverage and optimal coverage. If APT were to co-locate on the AT&T tower, APT would be forced to construct a second tower which would be in violation of the intent of the city's ordinance to limit the number of towers in the city. Mr. Coyle explained that • information was not submitted to staff in advance because of its confidential nature. Commissioner Tacheny indicated the Planning Commission's request at the November meeting was for APT to consider the possibility of co-locating on the AT&T tower and on a tower in the northern sector of the city. Mr. Coyle stated it was his understanding that co-locating on another tower would still force APT to . build an additional tower. Jeff Peterson, APT representative, stated APT could not commit to co-location because they were not sure if the AT&T tower could structurally support their equipment. Mr. Peterson stated he did have the coverage analysis information available. Commissioner Mesich questioned why this information was not made available to staff earlier for their review. Mr. Coyle stated that APT was advised not to distribute this information in advance by their corporate legal representation. Mr. Ineet, APT representative, provided maps indicating coverage co-locating on the AT&T Tower, as well as coverage with a tower proposed by APT. Vice Chair Anderson questioned whether or not co-locating on the two existing towers meets or exceeds APT's expectations for coverage. Mr. Ineet stated it appears it may, but other factors must be taken into consideration. Mr. Coyle stated APT cannot force AT&T to allow them to co-locate. He noted APT has received a 12-page application from AT&T, which only means AT&T will look at the possibility of co-location. Mr. Coyle stated if it were possible to co-locate, APT would certainly be interested because of the significant cost savings. Commissioner Minton questioned whether or not a structural analysis has been done for co-location on the AT&T tower as well as the tower on County Road No. 33. Mr. Peterson stated it has not, due to the significant cost. Discussion followed regarding present and future coverage needs, as well as projected sites. Scott Harlicker noted the Zimmerman site has not been secured 11111 due to the moratorium on antenna towers in Sherburne County. Mr. Peterson