My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/07/2008
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2008
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/07/2008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 9:45:26 AM
Creation date
8/4/2008 9:27:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
08/07/2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
118
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />John Enstrom stated he has 3.5 of the most desirable sites in Ramsey on his property and if <br />Central Park is not a good spot, Veterans Lake is not a good site either and he wants it eliminated <br />from consideration. He hoted one of the towers straddles his property and his neighbor's <br />property to the west. However, he does not want an antenna on the west half ofthat tower either. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Miller clarified that the antennas allowed in Central Park are <br />co-located on the 100-foot tall lights, adding an additional 20 feet as opposed to adding new <br />towers. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Levine, seconded by Commissioner VanScoy, to close the public <br />hearing. <br /> <br />Motion Carried. V oting Yes: Chairperson Nixt, Commissioners Levine, VanScoy, Brauer, <br />Cleveland, Hunt, and Rogers. Voting No: None. Absent: None. <br /> <br />The public hearing closed at 8:48 p.m. <br /> <br />Commission Business <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission back to order at 8:48 <br />p.m. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated that given the amount of work his firm does for service providers, he <br />will be abstaining from discussion. <br /> <br />Commissioner VanScoy questioned the language about minimum setback. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Gladhill explained that the design of the monopole is to fall straight down, not <br />to the side and in looking at the design of the tower, the setbacks should be adequate. He <br />reviewed the zoning districts where towers are allowed and setback standards for the various <br />zoning districts. <br /> <br />Commissioner Van Scoy asked if towers can be 35 feet from a structure. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Gladhill stated it can be within 35 feet from the property line if in an industrial <br />zonmg. <br /> <br />Commissioner VanScoy stated he believes it is not appropriate to locate a tower close to a <br />property line when next to residential because the tower could fall on someone's house. He <br />asked that consideration of the neighboring use be addressed in the setbacks. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Gladhill suggested adding language to indicate that when adjacent to a <br />residential area, they aresu~ject to the height oftower plus ten feet. <br /> <br />Commissioner Brauer stated he will also abstain from this vote. <br /> <br />Planning Commission / July 10, 2008 <br />Page 15 of 17 <br /> <br />P15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.