Agenda - Council - 01/09/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I locators) and provide more flexibility in location and height of antennas for the co-locators. Due to the nature of the AEC Energy Park to the north and the Smart Growth Grant Site to the west staff recommended that the applicant construct a monopole telecommunication tower for aesthetic purposes. Citizen Input Chairperson Nixt inquired if they were indicating that there would be four co-locators in addition to Verizon. Jason Hall, American Tower, replied that there would be a total of four carders. He stated that the problem with the monopole tower is with the capacity lOad, which is the reason they are proposing to construct a lattice tower. Commissioner Kociscak inquired if they are less likely to have co-10Cators on a mono pole. Mr. Hall replied that there will probably be only three carriers on a monopole in comparison to four on a lattice tower because there is more range for co-location on a lattice tower. Chairperson Nixt inquired as to what the cost difference was between tl'~:~ monopole and the lattice tower. Mr. Hall replied that the cost is about the same, but the lattice's up front cost is slightly higher. Motion by Commissioner Wivoda, seconded by Commissioner Kociscak, to close the public hearing. Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Nixt, Commissioners Wivoda, Kociscak, Griffiths, and Reeve. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioner Johnson, The public hearing closed at 7:37 p.m. Commission Business Chairperson Nixt called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission back to order at 7:37 p.m. Commissioner Wivoda inquired as to the height of the similar tower that is located on Armstrong Boulevard. Mr. Hall replied that they did consider co-locating on the tower that is located along Armstrong Boulevard because the tower is 180 feet, but there are alreadY three, carriers on that tower and the height that they would be able to co-locate on would be I20 feet, which is not adequate. Planning CommissionfDecember 5, 2000 Page 3 of 17