Agenda - Council - 01/23/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-142- support equipment for future co-locators. The site will be heavily landscaped with trees and shrubs. Staff feels that the landscaping plan exceeds City standards. The subject property currently has access through a gravel driveway derived from Ramsey Blvd. The applicant is proposing to extend the existing gravel driveway to the east and to the north to access the tower location. The applicant has submitted information stating that if the tower were ever to fall, it would collapse on top of itself into a "fall zone." The fall zone is indicated on the site plan and is significantly setback from any structure or easement on the subject property. City Code establishes that no new tower shall be approved unless the Council finds that the equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing tower or structure within a 1 mile radius of the proposed tower. There are no tall structures in the 1 mile search area that would satisfy the desired seamless coverage. The City is currently constructing a water tower to the north of the subject property that could facilitate the proposed telecommunication service. However, the Applicant has stated that due to the projected July completion date for the water tower and their intention to also co-locate on the existing water tower located off of County Road #5 and Dysprosium Street, the new water tower site does not meet their immediate need to fill the existing coverage gaps by January 2001 and does not ultimately provide for a higher coverage area. The applicant has stated and provided propagation maps explaining that the existing 120-foot tower approximately 1 mile to the west of the subject property is not high enough to meet their desired coverage needs. They stated that co-locating on this tower would still provide several gaps in coverage. There will be no personnel stationed at the site. No signs will be posted on the tower or equipment building except applicable warning or equipment information signs. The Planning Commission reviewed the conditional use permit request by American Tower on December 5, 2000. There was no citizen input during the public hearing. Recommendation: At the time of the December Planning Commission meeting, American Tower Corporation was requesting a conditional use permit to construct a self-supporting lattice telecommunication tower. The Planning Commission reviewed the request and recommended approval of the conditional use permit for a telecommunication tower that consisted of a monopole design instead of the proposed lattice tower. Due to the Planning Commissions recommendation, American Tower has revised their conditional use permit application and are now proposing to construct a monopo[e design telecommunication tower. I ! I I I I I ! I I I