11-26-1996 PC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 1996 Page 10 . Mr. Ramberg noted they have a tower north of Zimmerman and are currently involved in the site acquisition process for service up to Mille Lacs Lake. There are no further plans for expansion other than adding additional antennas to existing towers. Members of the Commission expressed concern that there appears to be no coverage in the northwest quadrant of the city and there will be a demand since the residential development is shifting that direction. The Commission indicated they wish to minimize the number of these towers as much as possible. steve Ach questioned why APT could not co-locate on the A T&T tower and then build an additional tower north of Elk River, if needed. Ms. Whitman stated there will be an opportunity for other users to co-locate on the tower they are proposing, eliminating additional towers. She added they can meet there coverage requirements on the proposed site but would not be able to do so on the AT&T site. Ms. Whitman stated she felt the proposed location is ideal with regard to traffic, noise, and lighting, since the site is zoned light industrial. Commissioner Anderson questioned how many sites are owned and how many are co-located. Ms. Whitman explained that she was not sure, but that of the 8 cellular sites, 4 are roof top sites, 3 ground-builts, all which are co-locates and 1 is an identified co-locator. Commissioner Kuester questioned the financial arrangement which is made to co-locate. Ms. Whitman explained typically, APT trades sites with another user, such as Sprint. Commissioner Mesich questioned why they could not co-locate on one of the communication towers to the north. . Commissioner Anderson questioned whether or not it made a difference if they worked with AT&T or Sprint. Ms. Whitman indicated it did not make a difference. Jeff Peterson stated they currently have leases in place with Sprint and NexTel. Mr. Peterson stated APT has made numerous requests to AT&T to co-locate on their existing sites since February and just received their first response yesterday (November 25, 1996), informing them of the process. Mr. Peterson explained if they could work out an agreement with AT&T and it would meet there coverage needs, that would be the route they would take. Mr. Peterson further explained that given the fact APT is a direct competitor and would be offering a better service, it would be unlikely AT&T would respond in the necessary time frame. Commissioner Anderson indicated it appears to be a competitive issue and a partnership issue of AT&T versus Sprint. Mr. Peterson stated that is part of the issue but there is also a coverage issue since the AT&T tower site does not meet their requirements and would require an additional tower. Mr. Ramberg stated that he selected the site from an engineering standpoint based on coverage. He stated he did check out the northern area where there are existing towers but did not feel he could provide the in-building penetration level needed for coverage in the city. Commissioner Minton questioned whether the coverage could be achieved by using the AT&T site and a tower in the northern area. Mr. Ramberg stated he was given the assignment for one tower location, not two. Ms. Whitman asked that the item be continued to further investigate this possibility. . Commissioner Mesich felt language should be included in the ordinance regarding conditional use permits for these towers, stating applicants shall not