My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Planning Commission - 07/10/2008
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Planning Commission
>
2008
>
Minutes - Planning Commission - 07/10/2008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/19/2025 3:45:39 PM
Creation date
9/11/2008 8:17:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
07/10/2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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 />deminimus in terms of what we are trying to accomplish. Or, the Planning Commission can <br />recommend approval with the exclusion of the overlay section and direct staff to identify a <br />replacement parcel. Chairperson Nixt stated since the moratorium is up in September, the <br />preferred course of action would be to make a recommendation to the City Council. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Gladhill stated the other overlay areas may adequately cover even with the <br />exception of this one parcel. <br /> <br />Dennis Carpenter reported that at the recent NAB convention, a manufacturer was showing new <br />monopole designs that look like big white pine trees and you cannot see the antennas. He offered <br />to share that information with staff. He informed Mr. Enstrom that red lights are not required if <br />the tower is under 200 feet in height. <br /> <br />Andy Hillibregt asked about the overlay system and why the City did not leave it up to the <br />individual landowners. He stated that a 2.5 acre lot will accommodate such a tower and it should <br />be left up to the property owner if they want a tower. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Gladhill explained that a 2.5 acre commercial or industrial lot may be <br />appropriate but it would not be appropriate within a residential area. He noted that residential <br />parcels were excluded except for areas where needed to provide coverage. He stated he believes <br />there would be a lot public feedback against doing such with a residential parcel. <br /> <br />Andy Hillibregt noted some of the areas could be developed in the future and when that happens <br />the tower would be in the middle of the residential area anyway. <br /> <br />Andy Hillibregt stated his preference to allow the property owners to make the decision whether <br />they want to be included in the overlay district since they better know their property. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated leaving it open to that level of discretion would end with a result that <br />residents and the City would not be pleased with, in aggregate. <br /> <br />Andy Hillibregt suggested they work with the residents to decide which parcels should be <br />identified. He noted that as density increases the towers will be lowered and more will be <br />needed. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Gladhill stated staff tried to anticipate that, noting the additional locations <br />along the Mississippi River areas. The gaps in service in the central area of Ramsey were also <br />identified. He noted that technology will be changing and the City will have to adjust the <br />ordinances accordingly. <br /> <br />Commissioner Brauer asked who defines the coverage area and adequacy. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Gladhill explained providers are required to research locations within a one- <br />mile radius and that is the basis for determining the overlay. He stated staff talked with service <br />providers about their service areas, which is the basis for the one-mile radius. <br /> <br />Planning Commission / July 10,2008 <br />Page 13 of 17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.