Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JULY 13, 2005 <br />that American Tower and New Cingular have now met all of the <br />requirements as specified in the City's Codes. <br />Blesener reported that he had questions relative to the three RF maps that <br />were submitted. He noted that in comparing map #1 (Proposed Coverage <br />in Little Canada area) with map #3 (Proposed Coverage using alternative <br />candidate in Little Canada area), the gap in coverage increases in the <br />Shoreview area on map #3 even though the Donovan tower is closer to <br />Shoreview than the new tower proposed for 3250 Spruce Street. <br />Weiss indicated that in condensing an RF map the will be some change in <br />the propagation study results, and indicated that the loss of coverage <br />shown on the map is not accurate. Blesener suggested that, as a result, not <br />much weight can be given to these maps. <br />Weiss reported that the additional monopole tower is needed to fill gaps in <br />coverage in the Rice Street/694 area and to the west. Blesener questioned <br />that the level of impact on coverage my moving the antenna location less <br />than'/a of a mile from the proposed 3250 Spruce Street site to the existing <br />Donovan tower. <br />Weiss reported that Cingular has done extensive study of this issue at the <br />request of the City, and pointed out that there are no guarantees that <br />Cingular can add an antenna to this Cower. Weiss explained that there are <br />various requirements for tip-to-tip separation of antennas, and indicated <br />that installation of an additional whip antenna at a 100 foot elevation is not <br />feasible. Weiss also explained that given the process and timing <br />requirements for a new conditional use permit, providers prefer to locate <br />antennas on existing towers rather than construct new ones. Weiss <br />indicated that the materials submitted show the need for a new tower and <br />that a co-location is not feasible. <br />Blesener disagreed, noting that the information submitted does not show, <br />wiChout a doubt, that a co-location is not feasible. <br />The City Administrator questioned the tip-to-tip separation requirements <br />as well as mounting heights available on the Donovan tower. He <br />suggested there may be possibilities to point a new antenna up rather than <br />down on the existing Donovan tower, and suggested that the Council may <br />consider a variance for antenna height on the Donovan tower rather than <br />approve a CUP for the construction of an additional cell tower in the City. <br />Weiss reported that the RF engineer have indicated that additional antenna <br />will not work on the existing Donovan tower. The Administrator asked if <br />Weiss can provide that documentation. <br />