HomeMy WebLinkAbout13. 22-101MARCH 8, 2022 22-101 RESOLUTION
(CARRIED___7-0____LOST_______LAID OVER_______WITHDRAWN_______)
PURPOSE: APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
COMMUNICATION TOWER AT 0 STILLMAN DRIVE
INITIATED BY: HARMONI TOWERS LLC
PLAN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approved w/ findings and conditions
WHEREAS, the Plan Commission finds that a Conditional Use Permit for a
communication tower at 0 Stillman Drive, is consistent with the criteria established in
Section 30-382 of the Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of
Oshkosh that a Conditional Use Permit for a communication tower at 0 Stillman Drive is
hereby approved, per the attached, with the following findings:
1. Is in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Would not result in a substantial or undue adverse impact on nearby property,
the character of the neighborhood, environmental factors, traffic factors, parking,
public improvements, public property or rights-of-way, or other matters
affecting the public health, safety, or general welfare.
3. Maintains the desired consistency of land uses, land use intensities, and land use
impacts as related to the environs of the subject property.
4. The conditional use is located in an area that will be adequately served by, and
will not impose an undue burden on, any of the improvements, facilities, utilities
or services provided by public or private agencies serving the subject property.
5. The potential public benefits outweigh any potential adverse impacts of the
proposed conditional use, after taking into consideration the applicant’s
proposal and any requirements recommended by the applicant to ameliorate
such impacts.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following are conditions of approval for the
Conditional Use Permit for a communication tower at 0 Stillman Drive:
MARCH 8, 2022 22-101 RESOLUTION
CONT’D
1. Final fencing (screening) plan shall be approved by the Department of
Community Development.
2. Final landscaping plan shall be approved by the Department of Community
Development
City Hall, 215 Church Avenue P.O. Box 1130 Oshkosh, WI 54903-1130 920.236.5000 http://www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council
FROM: Mark Lyons, Planning Services Manager
DATE: March 3, 2022
RE: Approve Conditional Use Permit for a Communication Tower at 0 Stillman Drive
BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for installation of a cellular
telecommunications tower. Communication Tower land uses are permitted only through a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the Heavy Industrial District (HI) as regulated in Section 30-
62 (C) of the Zoning Ordinance. Criteria used for Conditional Use Permits are located in Section
30-382 of the Zoning Ordinance. The subject site consists of a 6.23 acre parcel located on the
south side of Stillman Drive. The site is currently vacant and located within the Northwest
Industrial Park. The 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan recommends Industrial use for the site.
The site is surrounded predominantly by industrial uses along with Lakeview Memorial
Cemetery to the south.
ANALYSIS
The applicant is proposing to install a cellular telecommunications tower which will have an
overall height of 199’ (including lightning rod). The proposed cell tower will be accessed from
Stillman Drive with a 12’ wide access drive. The tower and associated equipment will be
enclosed within a 75’ X 75’ fenced in area. Communication towers must be enclosed by solid
fencing at least 6' in height or a buffer yard with a minimum opacity of 0.4 and screened so that
it is not accessible to the general public. The plans include 6’ tall solid wood fencing (with access
gate) surrounding the tower and related equipment. Staff is recommending a condition that final
fencing plans be approved by the Department of Community Development.
The proposed tower height has been approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
The applicant has provided a sworn statement attesting that collocation within the applicant’s
search ring is economically burdensome, meeting the permit application requirement for a new
communication tower. The applicant has provided the required sworn statement attesting that
collocation within the applicant’s search ring is economically burdensome, meeting the permit
application requirement for a new communication tower.
City Hall, 215 Church Avenue P.O. Box 1130 Oshkosh, WI 54903-1130 920.236.5000 http://www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us
FISCAL IMPACT
Approval of this project should result in an increase in the assessed property value for the site.
The developer is anticipating spending approximately $360,000 on the development.
RECOMMENDATION
The Plan Commission recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit with findings and
conditions on March 1, 2022. Please see the attached staff report and meeting minutes for more
information.
Respectfully Submitted, Approved:
Mark Lyons John Fitzpatrick
Planning Services Manager Assistant City Manager / Director of
Administrative Services
ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A
COMMUNICATION TOWER AT 0 STILLMAN DRIVE
Plan Commission meeting of March 1, 2022.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Scott Littell, Harmoni Towers LLC.
Owner: Michael R. Peerenboom
Action(s) Requested:
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for installation of a communication tower
(cellular telecommunications tower).
Applicable Ordinance Provisions:
Communication Tower land uses are permitted only through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
in the Heavy Industrial District (HI) as regulated in Section 30-62 (C) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Criteria used for Conditional Use Permits are located in Section 30-382 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Property Location and Background Information:
The subject site consists of a 6.23 acre parcel located on the south side of Stillman Drive. The
site is currently vacant and located within the Northwest Industrial Park. The 2040
Comprehensive Land Use Plan recommends Industrial use for the site. The site is surrounded
predominantly by industrial uses along with Lakeview Memorial Cemetery to the south.
Subject Site:
Existing Land Use Zoning
Vacant HI
Recognized Neighborhood Organizations
N/A
Adjacent Land Use and Zoning:
Existing Uses Zoning
North Industrial HI
South Railroad HI
West Industrial HI
East Industrial HI
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Recommendation Land Use
2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Recommendation Industrial
Item II – CUP/Communication Tower – 0 Stillman Dr.. 2
ANALYSIS
Use
The applicant is proposing to install a cellular telecommunications tower which will have an
overall height of 199’ (including lightning rod). Communication towers require a Conditional
Use Permit in the Heavy Industrial (HI) district.
Site Design & Access
The proposed cell tower will be accessed from Stillman Drive with a 12’ wide access drive. The
tower and associated equipment will be enclosed within a 75’ X 75’ fenced in area.
Item II – CUP/Communication Tower – 0 Stillman Dr.. 3
Required Provided
Front Setback (north) 30 ft. 30’
Side Setback (east) 20 ft. 239’
Side Setback (west) 20 ft. 32’
Rear Setback (south) 25 ft. 416’
Impervious Surface 70% max. Approx. 3%
The proposed cell tower and equipment are meeting all applicable setback, impervious surface
and height requirements of the zoning ordinance, with the exception of a utility transformer
pad and fiber handhole shown within the front setback area. These structures will need to be
moved further south to meet the 30’ setback requirement. This can be addressed during Site
Plan Review.
The proposed tower height has been approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Communication towers must be enclosed by solid fencing at least 6' in height or a buffer yard
with a minimum opacity of 0.4 and screened so that it is not accessible to the general public.
Fence design, materials and colors shall reflect the character of the surrounding area. The plans
include 6’ tall solid wood fencing (with access gate) surrounding the tower and related
equipment. Staff is recommending a condition that final fencing plans be approved by the
Department of Community Development.
The applicant has provided a sworn statement attesting that collocation within the applicant’s
search ring is economically burdensome, meeting the permit application requirement for a new
communication tower.
Parking
The applicant is not proposing any parking on the site. On-site parking is not required for
communication tower land uses.
Signage and Lighting
No lighting or signage is being proposed for the site. Lighting is not required as on-site parking
is not being provided.
Storm Water Management
Finalized storm water management plans have not been submitted. Plans will be required and
reviewed during the Site Plan Review process.
Item II – CUP/Communication Tower – 0 Stillman Dr.. 4
Landscaping
As no building is being proposed for the site, only street frontage and paved area landscaping
are required.
Points Required Points Provided
Street Frontage 40 (20 medium trees) Not listed
Paved Areas 18 (5.4 tall trees, 7.2 shrubs) Not listed
TOTAL 58 Not listed
Street Frontage
The plan set does not show provided street frontage landscaping. Code requires 30 street
frontage landscaping points per 100 feet of frontage. These landscaping points will need to be
provided and can be addressed during Site Plan Review.
Paved Areas
The provided site plan shows 5 trees on the north side of the enclosed tower/equipment area,
but does not list the species. A combination of trees and shrubs will need to be provided to
meet the code requirement of 30 paved area landscaping points per 10,000 sq. ft. of paved area.
This can also be addressed during Site Plan Review.
RECOMMENDATION/CONDITIONS
In its review and recommendation to the Common Council on an application for a Conditional
Use Permit, staff recommends the Plan Commission make the following findings based on the
criteria established by Chapter 30-382 (F)(3):
(1) Is in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan.
(2) Would not result in a substantial or undue adverse impact on nearby property, the
character of the neighborhood, environmental factors, traffic factors, parking, public
improvements, public property or rights-of-way, or other matters affecting the public
health, safety, or general welfare.
(3) Maintains the desired consistency of land uses, land use intensities, and land use
impacts as related to the environs of the subject property.
(4) The conditional use is located in an area that will be adequately served by, and will not
impose an undue burden on, any of the improvements, facilities, utilities or services
provided by public or private agencies serving the subject property.
(5) The potential public benefits outweigh any potential adverse impacts of the proposed
conditional use, after taking into consideration the applicant’s proposal and any
requirements recommended by the applicant to ameliorate such impacts.
Item II – CUP/Communication Tower – 0 Stillman Dr.. 5
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit for a communication tower
at 0 Stillman Dr. as proposed with the findings listed above and the following conditions:
(1) Final fencing (screening) plan shall be approved by the Department of Community
Development.
(2) Final landscaping plan shall be approved by the Department of Community
Development
Plan Commission recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit with findings and
conditions on March 1, 2022. The following is their discussion on the item.
Site Inspections Report: No commissioners reported visiting the site.
Staff report accepted as part of the record.
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for installation of a communication tower
(cellular telecommunications tower).
Mr. Slusarek presented the item. The applicant is proposing to install a cellular
telecommunications tower which will have an overall height of 199’ (including lightning rod).
Communication towers require a Conditional Use Permit in the Heavy Industrial (HI) district.
The proposed cell tower will be accessed from Stillman Drive with a 12’ wide access drive. The
tower and associated equipment will be enclosed within a 75’ X 75’ fenced in area.
The proposed cell tower and equipment are meeting all applicable setback, impervious surface
and height requirements of the zoning ordinance, with the exception of a utility transformer
pad and fiber handhole shown within the front setback area. These structures will need to be
moved further south to meet the 30’ setback requirement. This can be addressed during Site
Plan Review.
The proposed tower height has been approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Communication towers must be enclosed by solid fencing at least 6' in height or a buffer yard
with a minimum opacity of 0.4 and screened so that it is not accessible to the general public.
Fence design, materials and colors shall reflect the character of the surrounding area. The plans
include 6’ tall solid wood fencing (with access gate) surrounding the tower and related
equipment. Staff is recommending a condition that final fencing plans be approved by the
Department of Community Development. Staff recommends approval with the findings and
conditions as listed in the staff report.
Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff.
Ms. Propp stated that today the Plan Commission received an objection to this. It is very
frustrating because the state ties our hands and really gives us little leeway for saying yes or no
on a new cell phone tower and we have no background to discern whether the objection is
correct or not. This is becoming a pattern with cell phone tower requests.
Item II – CUP/Communication Tower – 0 Stillman Dr.. 6
Mr. Perry asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any
statements.
Paul Jonas, Attorney at Michael Best & Friedrich LLP, said he represents the applicant Harmoni
Towers.
Andrew T. Flowers, AT&T, said that AT&T is in the process of upgrading a great number of
their facilities through Wisconsin and one of the items that keeps coming up is coverage from
our existing sites as opposed to finding another facility to work with to provide better coverage,
meaning more height or moving the tower closer to residential or business use. In this
particular case, AT&T is asking to build a new facility that is about 50+ feet taller than the
existing site to better cover the north end of town including the industrial park and residential
areas. We feel as though we cannot meet those requirements at our existing sites. The tower we
are proposing to build will be built for multiple co-locators. The tower is going to be built for
future use by anybody else that is willing to lease space. This new cell site will also have
FirstNet on it for first responders, which is part of AT&T’s requirements with our contract with
the federal government and will also have the newest technology added to it. We don’t have
any objections to the landscaping and that can be taken care of during the building permit
process.
Shane Anderson, Attorney at the Law Firm of Conway, Olejniczak & Jerry, S.C., appearing on
behalf of SBA Structures LLC. He said the purpose of his attendance is to provide the Plan
Commission with information as it relates to the existing cell tower, which ATT&T is currently
co-located approximately .2 miles away from this proposed location. The first point is that in
negotiating with SBA Structures, ATT&T mentioned that the height of this new tower will
provide enhanced capabilities. At this point, SBA has not been approached by ATT&T as it
relates to increased height capabilities on this current location. That’s something that SBA
Structures would be willing to discuss with ATT&T moving forward. The current tower of SBA
at the Algoma Boulevard location is currently at 90.1% capacity and the usual threshold is
105%. There is some room for expansion as it relates to that existing cell tower. The affidavit
provided by ATT&T as it relates to this new cell tower, they bring up the disparity and rent.
SBA would be willing to engage in further discussion terms. At this point we would just be
looking for the Plan Commission at minimum to postpone a decision until further discussion.
Mr. Perry closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing
statements.
Mr. Jonas said that he has done dozens of these hearings over the past few years and this is a
frequent exchange between various cell towers and SBA. Most of you are probably familiar with
Wisconsin Statute 66.0404 that does put some guidelines around the way cell towers are
processed, considered and approved. In the case of SBA, it’s been a unique situation. Among
AT&T’s carriers, most have been willing to discuss modifying not only the financial terms, but
also the operational terms. Specifically with regards to the ability of carriers. This tower is
designed for up to four carriers, not just AT&T. To quickly and efficiently swap out old
equipment for new. It’s critically important that the folks working from home have great
Item II – CUP/Communication Tower – 0 Stillman Dr.. 7
connectivity using the best technology. SBA, among other tower developers, have elected to
stay with their economically burdensome former lease structure that does not allow four
carriers to quickly and easily swap out equipment when the situation calls for it. Harmoni on
the other hand does not. Putting aside the fact that over the term of the lease AT&T is going to
save millions of dollars in rent and those savings will be passed directly onto consumers.
There’s also the operational aspect that when combined with the substantial rent savings
definitely meet economic burden standard in 66.0404. In addition to that, SBA has a habit of
remaining silent until the day of the meeting. And then, as they did here, they send a letter the
day of the meeting raising an objection ultimately trying to maintain their monopoly in a
market. In the rare case that they are successful, the result is less coverage, poor coverage and
more expensive coverage for citizens of whatever community it is that we’re trying to build the
new tower. I suggest that Harmoni has met and exceeded the standard under 66.0404. I realized
it’s an uncomfortable position to be in the middle of two carriers. AT&T would be happy to
have a discussion and is in fact in discussion with multiple carriers and not just about one tower
because there are thousands of towers and it’s not possible to have these ad hoc negotiations on
a tower by tower basis. They are attempting to negotiate a more global resolution with SBA and
other carriers to bring those costs down, but have not been able to do it at this time and thus the
new tower application.
Mr. Mitchell asked if the closer you are to a cell tower, the better the service.
Mr. Jonas said in this case, we do our best to locate these towers in areas that will be sort of the
lease obtrusive. We are in an industrial park near a cemetery in this case. Hopefully we have
accomplished that goal.
Mr. Mitchell said that there’s presumably other cell providers on a given tower. Let’s say that
this part of the town is well covered by one tower. There may be another area of town that
maybe doesn’t have good coverage. What is the need to go less than a quarter mile away from
the existing tower with a second tower. From a land use or planning perspective, it’s
permissible and it’s probably going to go through but it’s just sometimes these things don’t
seem to be the most sensible.
Mr. Flowers said the way that AT&T builds their network is like a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle. As
you put those pieces together, we want to make sure they are seamless. As you’re driving your
car from one point to the next, you don’t have dropped calls or if you’re trying to download
something, or your kids are watching a movie, we don’t want any disruption of service. When
we have to build a tower that we’re on close to another tower, helps us maintain that ability to
keep continuous coverage. The existing site is about 140 elevation and the new tower will be at
190 feet. Now going back to the economics if it is one things, but the engineering piece of it,
adding 50 feet to a tower is not really a workable solution because the tower would have been
built as tall as it should have been from engineering when it was originally constructed. It’s just
not made to do what it’s going to be asked to do, which would be adding a 50 foot extension.
Hence the reason we’re asking for this tower to be built with the newest engineering standards
and have the ability to carry multiple carriers for future use. AT&T does not like having to build
site next to another site, because it is cheaper and faster for us to co-locate on something that
Item II – CUP/Communication Tower – 0 Stillman Dr.. 8
was built correctly. In this case we feel as though that is not something we can work with today
for multiple reasons.
Motion by Mitchell to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report.
Seconded by Propp.
Chairperson Perry said that he wants to echo what Ms. Propp has said. Plan Commission has
had these cell towers brought before them previously. There is not much that the Plan
Commission can do for these types of things. We are here to meet the needs of the community
by adhering to the statutes and regulations around this. Our hands are pretty much tied.
Motion carried 8-0.
CUP
STILLMAN DR
PC: 03-01-2022
LAKE VIEW MEMORIAL PARK
PO BOX 130548
HOUSTON, TX 77219
CORRIM INVESTMENTS LLC
1870 STILLMAN DR
OSHKOSH, WI 54901
MVT LLC
2247 RYF RD
OSHKOSH, WI 54904
BBB REAL ESTATE LLC
2916 ALGOMA BLVD
OSHKOSH, WI 54901
CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RR CO
4823 N 119TH ST
MILWAUKEE, WI 53225
CAREW CONCRETE & SUPPLY CO INC
1811 W EDGEWOOD DR
APPLETON, WI 54913
SUTTON PROPERTIES LLC
8011 SCHOFIELD AVE
SCHOFIELD, WI 54476
FOX VALLEY & WESTERN LTD
17641 S ASHLAND AVE
HOMEWOOD, IL 60430
TOWN OF OSHKOSH
1076 COZY LN
OSHKOSH, WI 54901
MICHAEL R PEERENBOOM
2561 VINLAND ST
OSHKOSH, WI 54901
SCOTT LITTELL (HARMONI TOWERS)
1026 SOUTH 57TH ST
WEST ALLIS, WI 53214
Oshkosh City LimitOshkosh City Limit
STILLMAN DRSTILLMAN DR
C:\Users\Public\Desktop\2020 Plan Commission Site Plan Map Template.mxd User: hannahs
Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
Printing Date: 2/7/2022
1 in = 120 ft1 in = 0.02 mi¯STILLMAN DRSTILLMAN DR
City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identification purposes only, andthe City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of the information. Those using theinformation are responsible for verifying accuracy. For full disclaimer please go towww.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer
I
I
HI
SMU SR-5
MR-12
UI-PD
SR-5
SMU-PD
MR-12-PD
DR-6
MR-12-PD
Ken Robl Conservation Park
Oshkosh City LimitOshkosh City Limit!"#$41
AAL
L
GGOOMMAABBLLVVDDWWFFEERR NNAAUUAAVVWWAALLTTEERRSSTTW PACKER AVW PACKER AVCLOVER STCLOVER STSSTTIILLLLMMAANN DDRR
MINERVA STMINERVA STHAMILTON STHAMILTON STPROGRESS DRPROGRESS DRWALTER CTWALTER CTC:\Users\Public\Desktop\2020 Plan Commission Site Plan Map Template.mxd User: hannahs
Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
Printing Date: 2/7/2022
1 in = 500 ft1 in = 0.09 mi¯STILLMAN DRSTILLMAN DR
City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identification purposes only, andthe City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of the information. Those using theinformation are responsible for verifying accuracy. For full disclaimer please go towww.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer
C:\Users\Public\Desktop\2020 Plan Commission Site Plan Map Template.mxd User: hannahs
Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI
Printing Date: 2/7/2022
1 in = 100 ft1 in = 0.02 mi¯STILLMAN DRSTILLMAN DR
City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identification purposes only, andthe City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of the information. Those using theinformation are responsible for verifying accuracy. For full disclaimer please go towww.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer
231 South Adams Street • Green Bay, WI 54301
P.O. Box 23200 • Green Bay, WI 54305-3200 • Phone: 920.437.0476 • Fax: 920.437.2868
www.lcojlaw.com
March 1, 2022 Attorney Shane A. Anderson SAA@lcojlaw.com Via E-Mail c/o Hannah Schueler, Office Asst., Planning Svcs. HSchueler@ci.oshkosh.wi.us
City of Oshkosh Plan Commission 215 Church Avenue P.O. Box 1130 Oshkosh, WI 54903-1130 Re: Objection to Application of Harmoni Towers, LLC
Dear Commissioners: I represent SBA Structures, LLC. The purpose of this correspondence is to object to the application of Harmoni Towers, LLC for a new communication tower. Attached please find information from an engineer retained by SBA to analyze the RF coverage related to this application. The attached maps document that the new tower duplicates SBA’s tower which is
located only 0.2292 miles from this new proposed tower. AT&T claims its current lease is economically burdensome. AT&T has not contacted my client to
negotiate lease terms or a lease extension. Instead, AT&T proposes to build a new tower that duplicates an existing tower. My client is ready and willing to negotiate lease terms with AT&T. SBA has another tenant on its current tower and that lease extends for several more years. Therefore, if the City of Oshkosh approves this application, the City will have two towers in the same area when only one tower is needed. I encourage the Plan Commission to deny this application until AT&T can demonstrate that it has exhausted all avenues to collocation as required by Wisconsin Statutes Section 66.0404 (2)(b)(6).
Thank you for your consideration. Should you or your staff have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, LAW FIRM OF CONWAY, OLEJNICZAK & JERRY, S.C.
By:
Shane A. Anderson SAA/plh/Enclosures:4137449
TO: SBA
Subject: RF Coverage Plot Analysis: City of Oshkosh, WI
Date: February 28, 2022
1. METHODOLOGY. The attached plots depict broadcast radio frequency (RF) coverage from the existing
site to City of Oshkosh, WI and a proposed site approximately 0.2292 miles to the Northeast. At each
location, cellular industry typical LTE operating parameters were considered for omnidirectional antennas
mounted at 120 feet above ground level at the existing site, and at 190 feet above ground level for the
proposed site. Ground elevations are 755 and 771 feet above mean sea level, respectively. 5G Broadcast
RF coverage was not reviewed since it is not operational as of this date.
Plots for both locations were generated for 700, 850, 1900 and 2100 MHz operations. The signal levels
depicted are associated with LTE service reliability where the strong coverage levels in green and blue
occur near the towers and decrease with distance from the sites and intervening terrain obstructions.
Signal levels greater than -70 dBm shown as blue are associated with feasible coverage within buildings.
Marginal coverage is provided in the regions depicted in yellow between -90 dBm and -80 dBm and signal
levels between -100 dBm and -90 dBm shown as red represent poor coverage associated with call failures.
A comparison of coverage performance for each site is based on low band (700 and 850 MHz) and high
band (1900 and 2100 MHz) prediction results. Radiowave propagation conditions between these bands
differ because of terrain and ground clutter (e.g. vegetation) effects at different frequencies. Generally,
low band operations provide greater area coverage. Therefore, high band operations provide additional
customer traffic capacity closer to the cellular site.
2. COMPARISON. The sites considered in these coverage plots provide service to the depicted locations
and roads leading to City of Oshkosh, WI. For low band operations, the existing site provides strong
coverage approximately 0.25 miles in all directions and to non-contiguous areas to 0.6 miles from the site.
This includes 0.7 miles of Algoma Blvd. The proposed site provides similar strong coverage 0.3 miles in all
directions and to non-contiguous areas to 0.6 miles. This includes 0.7 miles of Algoma Blvd. Both sites
provide marginal coverage to non-contiguous areas up 0.7 miles from the site.
For high band operations, both sites provide strong coverage to non-contiguous areas 0.5 miles in all
directions.
3. CONCLUSION. Based on the coverage comparison presented above, the proposed site provides
comparable coverage to City of Oshkosh, WI due to its close proximity to the existing site. For wireless
operators with antennas mounted on the existing site, the installation of additional antennas on the
proposed site would be considered to be an “overbuild” or impractical given the coverage overlap.
Site Name WI21324-A Algoma Blvd Antenna:15.15 dBi Omni
Latitude:N44.052358 Alpha Rad Center (ft):120
Longitude:W88.571583 Azimuth (Deg):0
ERP per RS (W):2.0
RSRP:
< -100 dBm >= -100 dBm >= -90 dBm >=-80 dBm >=-70 dBm
Existing Site
700 MHz Coverage
Site Name Proposed Antenna:15.15 dBi Omni
Latitude:N44.054081 Alpha Rad Center (ft):190
Longitude:W88.567622 Azimuth (Deg):0
ERP per RS (W):2.0
RSRP:
< -100 dBm >= -100 dBm >= -90 dBm >=-80 dBm >=-70 dBm
Proposed Site
700 MHz Coverage
Site Name WI21324-A Algoma Blvd Antenna:15.15 dBi Omni
Latitude:N44.052358 Alpha Rad Center (ft):120
Longitude:W88.571583 Azimuth (Deg):0
ERP per RS (W):2.0
RSRP:
< -100 dBm >= -100 dBm >= -90 dBm >=-80 dBm >=-70 dBm
Existing Site
850 MHz Coverage
Site Name Proposed Antenna:15.15 dBi Omni
Latitude:N44.054081 Alpha Rad Center (ft):190
Longitude:W88.567622 Azimuth (Deg):0
ERP per RS (W):2.0
RSRP:
< -100 dBm >= -100 dBm >= -90 dBm >=-80 dBm >=-70 dBm
Proposed Site
850 MHz Coverage
Site Name WI21324-A Algoma Blvd Antenna:17.15 dBi Omni
Latitude:N44.052358 Alpha Rad Center (ft):120
Longitude:W88.571583 Azimuth (Deg):0
ERP per RS (W):4.7
RSRP:
< -100 dBm >= -100 dBm >= -90 dBm >=-80 dBm >=-70 dBm
Existing Site
1900 MHz Coverage
Site Name Proposed Antenna:17.15 dBi Omni
Latitude:N44.054081 Alpha Rad Center (ft):190
Longitude:W88.567622 Azimuth (Deg):0
ERP per RS (W):4.7
RSRP:
< -100 dBm >= -100 dBm >= -90 dBm >=-80 dBm >=-70 dBm
Proposed Site
1900 MHz Coverage
Site Name WI21324-A Algoma Blvd Antenna:17.15 dBi Omni
Latitude:N44.052358 Alpha Rad Center (ft):120
Longitude:W88.571583 Azimuth (Deg):0
ERP per RS (W):4.7
RSRP:
< -100 dBm >= -100 dBm >= -90 dBm >=-80 dBm >=-70 dBm
Existing Site
2100 MHz Coverage
Site Name Proposed Antenna:17.15 dBi Omni
Latitude:N44.054081 Alpha Rad Center (ft):190
Longitude:W88.567622 Azimuth (Deg):0
ERP per RS (W):4.7
RSRP:
< -100 dBm >= -100 dBm >= -90 dBm >=-80 dBm >=-70 dBm
Proposed Site
2100 MHz Coverage