6.5, 6.6 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• The PCS companies preference is for lattice towers over mono poles. Lattice towers offer more flexibility for colocation, are more readily available and are cheaper to construct. Mono poles can also be designed to accommodate other users but once in place they do not offer the flexibility that lattice towers do. The main advantage mono pole have over lattice towers is the visual impact. Mono poles do not have the aesthetic impact that lattice towers have. It is easier to design and paint a mono pole so that it blends in with the surrounding background thereby reducing the visual impact. APT's current marketing strategy is to target the metro area and provide service to those customers as they travel north. It does not include home service to the entire county, with the possible exception of Elk River. There is not enough of a population base to justify the cost of providing cells to cover the less populated areas. The towers that they are currently proposing are the first phase of their cellular network for this area. The second phase will include the construction of infill cell sites and will be driven by the increase in customers and the number of phone calls handled. Eventually they will reach a critical point when additional towers will be needed. APT does not know at this point when they will reach that critical mass or exactly where the additional towers will be located. It is likely that the towers will be located between existing towers along Highway 169 and Highway 10. • Colocation was also discussed. Colocation is the preferred method but is not always available. Sprint and APT have a good working relationship regarding colocation and the relationship between APT and AT&T is becoming more cooperative. A company's first preference when looking for a site is to utilize existing structures such as water towers and existing cellular towers. It can be difficult to ensure that colocation is accomplished. To encourage colocation the city, as part of the conditional use permit process, could require that an applicant demonstrate that a good faith effort was made to colocate on existing towers and an agreement stating that the site will be designed to accommodate up to 3 additional users and a commitment to being cooperative regarding colocation. The city can also encourage colocation by expediting the review process and requiring only a building permit for additional antennas on an existing tower. APT has expressed an interest in having a special meeting with the Planning Commission the first week in February. It is hoped that representatives from Sprint and AT&T will also be in attendance so that a cooperative dialogue between the city and the cellular providers in this area can be initiated. At the conclusion of this meeting APT is looking for a decision from the Planning Commission regarding their application. If it is decided to hold a special • meeting in February, the Commission should get a letter from APT requesting that their application be tabled until that date.