Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />AUGUST 10, 2005 <br />Weiss pointed out the inventory of existing tower locations for Little <br />Canada and the surrounding area that she provided. Weiss indicated that <br />this inventory shows no viable replacements for the water tower location, <br />as these existing towers are fully loaded. <br />Weiss also pointed out the suggested wording that she provided that <br />conditions the approval of the CUP for the new tower on the continuation <br />of Che water tower location. <br />The Administrator noted that the proposed tower aC 3250 Spruce provides <br />for some overlap in coverage with that provided by the water tower <br />location. Weiss pointed out that the water tower location has existed for <br />12 years, and it was her feeling that New Cingular would not eliminate <br />this site and lose coverage. <br />The Administrator pointed out that Che construction of a smaller Cower <br />would replace the water tower site without a loss of coverage. The <br />Administrator was concerned Chat New Cingular would Cry Yo replace the <br />wafer tower with a lower cost alternative, thereby violating the City's <br />tower ordinance. The Administrator asked if there was an engineering <br />issue that the City could use to tie the new tower and water tower site <br />together under the CUP. <br />Lysiak indicated that the City could stipulate in the CUP Chat if New <br />Cingular vacates the water tower site they have to show that coverage does <br />not degrade. <br />Weiss pointed out the City's interests in the water tower site, and asked if <br />the City would have the same concerns if that perspective were not <br />present. Weiss felt that the water tower lease was a separate issue from <br />the CUP being requested this evening. Weiss questioned the City's ability <br />to tie the two issues together. <br />The City Adminisriator pointed out that the City's ordinance requires co- <br />locations as the first option for any carrier wishing to locate <br />telecommunication antennas within the City. If we are allowing a new <br />tower that jeopardizes Che co-location on the water tower, then it seems <br />questionable as to the need for the new tower. <br />LaValle asked the City Attorney if the two issues could be tied together. <br />The City Attorney replied that they cou]d. He offered the following <br />wording be incorporated into the Conditional Use Permit if the City <br />decides to approve it: <br />"Approval of the CUP for the new proposed tower located at 3250 <br />Spruce Street shall not in any way replace the coverage objective <br />