Agenda - Council - 01/08/2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

placed the full height distance away from the tower. He stated that he feels the first location considered on the other side of the pond up against the landfill would be a better location because there are no homes or power lines to consider. He stated that he does not like the idea of the combination of the proximity of the power lines and the tower to his property. He stated that if the City Council does not think things can fall, just remember the 35W bridge collapse. Douglas Fountain, 15255 Gamet Street NW, stated that he also objects to the placement of the tower and does not think that all possible locations have been studied. He asked if the towers are required to be placed on industrial or City owned land. Community Development Director Trudgeon stated that current City Code states that towers will be placed on commercial or industrial land, or land owned by the City, such as a park or school to minimize the impact on residential neighborhoods. Mr. Fountain ~tated that he is a T-Mobile customer and has not had any difficulties with his coverage. He stated that the only times he has had problems was when he visited Kentucky and Tennessee. He stated that at a previous meeting, T-Mobile had stated that they had reception problems to the northeast of Ramsey. He stated that his daughter lives in Oak Grove, which is northeast of Ramsey and he has had no problems reaching her using his cell phone. He suggested that the City consider the southeast comer of the park near the landfill. He stated that there is elevation available and does not feel the landfill will block reception. He stated that he would like the City Council to deny this location and look at the southeast comer of the property near the landfill, which would also locate the tower away from homes. Steven Edwards, 501 - 50th Street W, Minneapolis, stated that he was at the meeting representing T-Mobile. Mr. Edwards stated that, to clarify, the tower is 165 feet high and can hold up to four different carriers. He stated that T-Mobile is trying to fill the gap in coverage because cell phone usage has skyrocketed. He stated that in many cases, people are using cell phones as their main line of communication and are moving away from having land line telephone service. He stated that the tower will be engineered so there is a soft spot, so, if there were ever damage, the tower would break at a certain level and not just topple over. He stated that he has never heard of a monopole ever breaking. He gave the example of breaking a pop can and noted that it will just bend in on itself and fall off. He stated that their first proposal for a tower location was further east near the holding pond, but that area proved problematic because of access issues. He stated that the current location proved to be a better fit because of the City's plans for the park and possible future uses. Randy Villa, 15125 Gamet Street NW, stated that the proposed tower location is directly behind his house and will be an eye sore. He stated that the tower will be located in the park, which has walking paths and wildlife, and he stated that he does not feel this is the place for a cell phone tower. He stated that there will be utility trucks coming in which will be a disruption to park goers. He stated that he strongly opposes the proposed placement of the tower. Carolyn Villa, 15125 Gamet Street NW, stated that she also opposed the placement of the tower and asked how many of the City Council members would like a cell phone tower in their back yard. She stated that when she opens her back door, she will have a view of the tower instead of -264-