Update: Atlas Towers’ renditions are at http://zoning.posterous.com/atlas-cell-tower-mockups
Here are some very rough renderings of cell towers at locations currently under discussion. Bear in mind that these are probably worst-case, as tower heights are likely to be lower. The renderings do not represent tree cover, which would reduce the appearance of height, though neither location offers dense tree cover. A stealth tower design and smaller antenna arrays could also reduce the visual impact.
“Bridger Ski” tower
Bridger Bowl, with a 130′ tower just south of the propane tank in A lot. Very rough envelopes of the Saddle Peak lodge and ski patrol building shown for scale.
As seen from Bridger Pines, looking across the base area:
As seen from the entrance off Hwy 86:
“Bridger South” tower
A 150′ tower on the Brunner property, at the bottom of Kelly Canyon. I placed this about halfway upslope on the narrow parcel, though the actual location is not known to me.
From the Schoolhouse:
From Kelly Canyon at the Bridger Woods Rd. turnoff:
Bridger South – Taller
Update: There are conflicting reports about the location of the South tower needed for connectivity. If the tower would have to be tall enough to see over the ridge to the south, it would look more like the following:
Tree cover would conceal the bottom portion of the tower, possibly diminishing the impression of height. But it would be difficult to maintain tree cover with foundations, roads and other site improvements on steep slopes.
[google-map-v3 width=”350″ height=”350″ zoom=”12″ maptype=”hybrid” mapalign=”center” directionhint=”false” language=”default” poweredby=”false” maptypecontrol=”true” pancontrol=”true” zoomcontrol=”true” scalecontrol=”true” streetviewcontrol=”true” scrollwheelcontrol=”false” draggable=”true” tiltfourtyfive=”false” addmarkermashupbubble=”false” addmarkermashupbubble=”false” addmarkerlist=”45.816051° -110.894324°{}1-default.png{}Proposed cell tower at Bridger Bowl|45.692992° -110.927496°{}1-default.png” bubbleautopan=”true” showbike=”false” showtraffic=”false” showpanoramio=”false”]
Twitter
Facebook
Canyon email list
RSS
Email
What is the rationale Atlas gives for towers? Specifically, to whom will they give service in the Canyon. The last company said many homes would NOT get service due to the irregular topography and would due better with Satellite. What thru-function (routing to elsewhere) are they intended to serve? How many devices can be piggybacked on them? Is there a finite number? Can the towers be required to be bonded so that when towers are obsolete in the near future, there is guaranteed $ available with which to remove them, and in a specified timely fashion? What are the total sum of emissions, give all possible objects that can be put on them? The previous cell inquiry company stated their interest was NOT to serve BC residents but to use the Canyon as a route to send service elsewhere. Is this true for Atlas, and doesn’t that make it a business ?. What precident is set by allowing them to be in the canyon? Can any inventor of some communications device in the future locate in the Canyon on the premise that they cannot be stopped? These are critical questions for Canyon residents to answer or have answered. The dream of convenient service for all is a myth. We need to know what Atlas gets out of this and if we are being used.
I know of a cell tower in an environmentally sensitive location inSt Louis county Missouri that was built in the 80’s to look like an old fashioned fire watch tower.
My mind is very divided on the issue of cellphone towers in the Canyon. On the one hand, the “convenience” would be “nice.” On the other, I fear the visual impact and undoing the very hard work — and money — BC residents have invested in maintaining (among many other things), the visual aspect of the Canyon. I would also fear the danger of setting a precedent that would trump, or just make even more costly, any input or control Canyon residents would have in the future.
Like Ellen above, I too would like to know more about Atlas:
-Does Atlas have contracts with ATT and/or Verizon?
-Are they a “build-it-and-they-will-come” company, as in build towers then lease/sell them to a telco?
-Will the tower(s) benefit users of both of the predominant US cell technologies — GSM and CDMA?
-Or will users of one technology be out of luck?
-If Atlas contracts with one provider to build tower(s), does this mean another provider will have to build their own tower(s)?
-If so, what about insisting about co-locating competing services on the same tower?
When it comes to BC zoning revisions/updates, has the issue of cellphone towers and other communication antennas been addressed? Wouldn’t it make sense to have the update in place before a precedent gets set permitting towers?
Here’s some interesting background on one alternative: http://dasneto.blogspot.com/2012/03/lightradio-new-promise-for-das.html
There are a few questions I would like to ask about the proposal for cell towers.
Would the cell towers be classified as “commercial facilities” under the zoning? Since they are built by private construction companies and space on them is leased to whomever wishes to place a transmitter or wind chimes on the structure, wouldn’t they be considered as a commercial structure rather than a utility? Much like a storage locker facility?
Mention has been made regarding a requirement of a bond to insure completion, and removal of the structure should it become obsolete, or incomplete. In my opinion, this is an absolute MUST.
The use of towers to transmit phone signals will most likely become obsolete and replaced with more efficient methods within 7 to 10 years. We don’t want another “Lehrkind Wall” or trailer park left at our expense.
Is it possible to grant a permit that expires within a reasonable time frame, to be re-negotiated at the end of the term? And to limit the types of transmitters attached to the towers?
I would also be interested in exactly who created the coverage maps? It appears they only show possible coverage of the proposed towers and do not include coverage which already exists. I realize there are many BC residents along the main road, and tucked into valleys and behind hills who currently don’t have cell service, but I also know we have had cell coverage in many areas along Jackson Creek Road for years. We have been fortunate enough to have service at our Aspen Meadow property since at least April, 2007. I would prefer to see a map that shows CURRENT service with any NEW service areas incorporated in a different color.
If the objective is to service Bridger Canyon residents and emergency services, which is very important to all, would we possibly be better served by strategically located, lower towers to reach those areas not currently covered?
I am not in agreement with the argument that construction and access to a tower site make it a problem to hide the facility. It may be difficult but it certainly can be done. It will simply cost the contractor more.
We need to insist on that feature.
I am in favor of cell service to all, but in doing so we must remember that we are dealing with a construction company that wants to build and lease space and then be gone. We need to be very careful to maintain the integrity and beauty of Bridger Canyon and bring coverage to everyone in a way that is best for all canyon residents. I would prefer the contractor bring a proposal that will accomplish those goals.
The coverage maps were created by Atlas Towers. It’s very hard to determine existing coverage. There are some web sites that purport to do it from public data, but none that I have seen are any good for our area.
Atlas is reportedly preparing coverage maps that assume shorter towers.
The draft does include a removal provision. A term seems like a good idea – we can explore that.
Pingback: Cell Tower Draft Regulation | BCPOA
Pingback: Personal Wireless Services amendment poll | Bridger Canyon Zoning Updates