2004-10-11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Session 1937 October 11,2004 Eric Schmitt, attorney representing Cingular, 168 North Meramec, Clayton, Missouri 63105 and accompanying Denise Free and Chuck Beck, Cingular representatives. His purpose is clarification of issues relating to the cell phone tower. He noted growing demand for cell phones, the need for mentioned also coverage and capacity mentioned the problem of "dropped calls" to alleviate that problem. He noted the infrastructure to support that demand, and issues around the Heman Park area. He and the nature of the structure to be installed new structure will be incorporated into what already exists, using the current pole and remounting the lights, noting the incorporation of the equipment shelter with the existing rest room. There is co-location capacity. He mentioned the Federal Mandate for E-911 service and how minimizing coverage areas allowed emergency service personnel to locate people quickly. Denise Free, engineer with Cingular Wireless, 13075 Manchester Road, Des Peres, referred to a letter on page two of the "Heman Park packet" and to a map showing the current coverage which is characterized as "marginal" to "poor" and said the aim of the new tower is to improve coverage by replacing the light pole with a new structure. Bruce A. Morrison for Great Rivers Environmental Law Center, 705 Olive Street, Suite 614, St. Louis, Missouri 63101, was not present but submitted a statement which was read by the City Clerk. He said he is a general counsel for the Great Rivers Environmental Law Center and had examined the issues which led to him making the following series of recommendations. He said Cingular needed to demonstrate to the City that the proposed tower fills a significant and existing gap to access the national telephone network; that it will cover an area not already served by another provider; that the six existing towers in University City which equal one cell tower for every square miles in University City means that there is no existing, significant gap in the ability of users to access the national telephone network. He said that Cingular should show that their method is the least intrusive method to fill the gap and demonstrate that there are no alternative, less intrusive sites; and he said they need to show that a shorter tower will not fulfill service needs and that a tower cannot be placed on an existing building and camouflaged in some fashion. He further mentioned that a permit means the Planning Commission can make findings related to design, to reduce visual degradation, and to propose to minimize the number and size of structures required in geographic area surrounding the proposed site. Since Cingular has not done this, he urged the appointment of a Task Force to examine the legal, economic, and aesthetic issues related to the proposed tower. He also said they should question whether this tower siting will open the door to more sitings of towers in other University City parks and whether they will pose a financial burden to the City, should Cingular cease conducting business Mayor Adams declared the Public Hearing closed 8:20 p.m. Mr. Ollendorff explained the procedure to be followed in respect of cell phone towers in Page 4