Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTIr5 <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />AUGUST 10, 2005 <br />Lysiak concluded thaC the result of his analysis is Chat the tower proposed <br />at 3250 Spruce Street is necessary to improve New Cingular's coverage in <br />Che area of 694 and Rice Street. He also concluded that even with Che <br />addition of this tower, New Cingular's antenna siCe on the City's water <br />Cower is necessary. <br />LaValle asked if Figure #4 showed both the proposed tower and the wafer <br />tower site. Lysiak replied that it did, and noted the result is that New <br />Cingular's coverage is the best that it could be. He pointed out thaC <br />removing the water tower site from the mix only degrades New Cingular's <br />coverage. Lysiak indicated that if the water tower site is no longer <br />available to New Cingular, another site would be needed to replace it. <br />That site could be lower than the water tower site and provide adequate <br />replacement coverage. <br />Blesener explained Chat at the time New Cingular made application for a <br />new Cower at 3250 Spruce SCreeC, the City received a call from a New <br />Cingular representative seeking Co renegotiate their water tower antenna <br />lease. The concern is that New Cingular is atCempting to build a new <br />tower that will replace Che City water tower site. <br />Lysiak reported that he has recently received calls from clients indicating <br />they had been conCacted by New Cingular relative to renegotiating leases. <br />Lysiak reported that he informed his clients that they have valid leases and <br />questioned why they would want to renegotiate. Lysiak did not fee] that <br />New Cingular's proposal for a new tower and the call to renegotiate the <br />water tower lease were related. He indicated that it is apparent to him that <br />both sites are needed. <br />Blesener noted that the tower proposed by New Cingular has the capacity <br />for four antenna locations. Weiss reported that the tower is proposed to be <br />150 feet in height. New Cingular would take the highest location, and <br />there would be the possibiliCy of three co-locations below New Cingular. <br />Weiss indicated Chat the lowest location at a heighC in the 80 foot range <br />may be somewhat questionable. <br />Blesener indicated that a tower with four possible antenna locations may <br />eliminate some requests for additional towers. Blesener noted that Little <br />Canada's frontages along the freeway system make iC a prime area for <br />Celecommunications towers. <br />Lysiak agreed, and noted that the City's ordinance is key in that it requires <br />co-locations on exisCing towers first. Requests for additional towers will <br />have to include justification for why a co-location is not possible. Lysiak <br />also noted thaC towers are getting shorter in the inner ring of cities. These <br />shorter towers are more neighborhood sensitive, but cover shorter <br />