Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />City Council Work Session <br />Topic Report: Cell Towers <br />By: Tim Gladhill <br /> <br />City of ~ <br />RAMSEY <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />In early 2008, Council directed staff to bring forward a moratorium on the construction of Cell <br />Phone Towers in order to study City Code Section 9.15 'Towers'. Antennas will continue to be <br />allowed to be attached to existing structures during the moratorium. The moratorium is set to <br />expire on September 17, 2008. <br /> <br />Attachments: <br /> <br />Exhibit A - Summary of current City Code Section 9.15 'Towers' <br />ExhibitB - Summary of other existing community's tower ordinances <br />Exhibit C - Map of existing towers in the City of Ramsey <br />Exhibit D - Map of parcels currently qualified for cell towers under current ordinance <br /> <br />Observations: <br /> <br />Since the moratorium has gone into effect, staff has studied height and placement of towers as <br />well as some minor revisions needed since the addition of the Public/Quasi-Public zoning <br />designation to City Code. <br /> <br />A summary of City Code Section 9.15 'Towers' is attached as Exhibit A. <br /> <br />Staff surveyed a small sample of surrounding communities in relation to tower ordinances. Two <br />communities (Edina and Bloomington) recently amended their tower ordinances to place more <br />stringent restrictions on the height of a tower. Other trends seen through the research showed <br />that many communities restrict the size of the lot through setback regulations (generally the <br />setbacks are at least equivalent to the height of the tower) rather than area. Andover also <br />recently amended their code stating that towers needed to be set back at least 500' from <br />residential parcels. -Elk River allows towers only within their tower overlay district, which is a <br />compilation of several, non-adjacent parcels in a variety of zoning districts distributed <br />throughout the city. <br /> <br />Staff from Bloomington provided an excellent response to the need of some communities to have <br />fewer, taller towers and other communities needing numerous, shorter towers. Bloomington <br />states that a wireless provider's need for height is primarily a function of coverage in rural areas <br />and of capacity in urban areas. Each site can handle a given amount of wireless traffic. In rural <br />areas, the volume of users is low and therefore the capacity of individual sites is not an issue, so <br />providers want maximum height to ensure maximum coverage and minimum cost. Once <br />wireless traffic within the coverage area grows to the extent that it is above capacity, additional <br />sites are needed to handle the capacity. <br /> <br />-1- <br />