My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC PACKET 07242007
StAnthony
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2007
>
CC PACKET 07242007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/30/2015 10:48:50 AM
Creation date
5/7/2014 2:22:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
Supplemental fields
City Code Chapter Amendment
Keywords
Missing
Ordinance #
Ordinance Summary
Ordinance Title
Planning File #
Property Address
Property PIN
Publication Newspaper
Publication Title
Publication Type
Resolution #
Resolution Summary
Resolution Title
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
51
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes <br />June 26, 2007 <br />Page 4 <br />1 members after audience testimony at the June 19, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. He <br />2 stated the Commission, based upon a review of the testimony and Staff recommendation, voted <br />3 unanimously to approve the CUP to site a T -Mobile Monopole Cell Phone Antenna with <br />4 findings, at 2900 Pentagon Drive NE, St. Anthony Shopping Center. <br />Councilmember Stille asked Commissioner Jensen if discussion regarding co -location on other <br />towers occurred. <br />9 Commissioner Jensen replied the antenna could conceivably be sited at the park; however, this <br />10 would be outside the coverage area for T -Mobile. He stated the Shopping Center met the <br />11 coverage needs of the applicant. He commented that the issue of health concerns were similar to <br />12 those discussed for other tower locations such as near schools and parks. Ile commented the <br />13 Commission felt the mall was a compliant location. <br />14 <br />15 Councilmember Thuesen asked where exactly the tower would be erected. <br />16 <br />17 Commissioner Jensen pointed out the location at the intersection of 27°i Avenue and the <br />18 Shopping Center. He stated it would be sited roughly in a courtyard area behind Mr. Todd <br />19 Hanson's Eye Clinic. Iie commented the distance is greater than the required setbacks. He <br />20 stated that visually, a 60 -foot antenna would be in view. <br />21 <br />22 Mr. Chuck Beisner, T -Mobile, pointed out the location of the antenna site on the north side of the <br />23 Shopping Center. He stated fencing would screen the antenna and equipment. Ile indicated the <br />24 site is designed to provide the coverage within the intersection and shopping center location. He <br />25 stated this commercial zone is the furthest location from a residential area. He commented he <br />26 felt the location is an excellent site and met code requirements. <br />27 <br />28 Mayor Pro "hem Horst asked Mr. Beisner to explain how and why this location was chosen. <br />29 <br />30 Mr. Beisner replied the radio frequency engineers take a closer look at areas where customers <br />31 complain about dropped calls or signals. He stated the engineers are able to determine where the <br />32 best location for an antenna would be. Ile explained that due to City Code, they were limited as <br />33 to where the antenna would provide the best option for coverage. He commented several other <br />34 areas were considered; however, an agreement could not be reached with property owners. <br />35 <br />36 Mayor Pro Tem Horst asked Mr. Beisner if an industrial zone was considered. <br />37 <br />38 Mr. Beisner replied one of the industrial zone considered was too close to a residential area. He <br />39 commented T -Mobile attempts to stay away from residential areas, as residents do not like to <br />40 look at the antenna. <br />41 <br />42 Councilmember Gray asked what the specifics were for sites not wanting to accept the monopole <br />43 at their location. <br />44 <br />45 Mr. Beisner stated they were concerned the equipment could potentially damage to the roof. <br />46 <br />1.7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.