Laserfiche WebLink
-294- <br /> <br />Ron Hunt - 17455 Nowthen Blvd. N.W. - Stated that he is dissatisfied with Rarnsey's planning <br />because it continues to devalue his property. He was offered $1,000,000 for his land and <br />Ramsey's comprehensive plan has devalued his land because it has been stated that his land is in <br />an area that will never be densely developed. He is very dissatisfied with this plan and now his <br />property will be further devalued by including it in the proposed tower system. He has lived in <br />Ramsey for 5.3 years and he is very disappointed that now someone can buy I 0 acres, put in a <br />cell tower and there are no setback requirements; there should be a setback from neighboring <br />homes. There are many large parcels that abut his property and his neighbors can put in <br />commercial towers and even though he is impacted, he has nothing to say about it becausa it <br />meets the conditional use permit criteria. Towers should be restricted to park land and more <br />densely populated areas where they will do some good. The City will have to compensate people <br />for devaluation of property. Mr. Hunt stated that he is a school teacher and the devaluation of his <br />property hurts and the City is making decisions that affect him without talking to him. <br /> <br />Skip Swanson- 8780 181st Avenue N.W. - Stated he is concerned that someone could put a <br />tower on the parcel next to him and because of the features of the land, the tower could be more <br />visible to him than to the owner of the property on which the tower is located. That situation will <br />make it harder for him to sell his property. If towers are good enough for residential parcels, <br />then why can't they be located on parks and wetlands? Stated that he has never had a problem <br />with his cell phone and inquired if there is a need for extra towers. <br /> <br />Sharon Zagaros - 9031 178a Avenue N.W. - Stated that they are always trying to fight for their <br />land. They moved from East St. Paul to Ramsey onto 3.75 acres and they paid a good price for <br />their land. First they had to contend with the easements for the new gas lines and now the City <br />wants to put cell towers on their land.' A neighbor could put a tower on his land that will be <br />highly visible from their back yard. Inquired as to wi/ere the towers will be located. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated that the City tried to draft an ordinance that increases the requirements <br />for cell tower companies. With the previous ordinance, these companies were subject to a more <br />relaxed standard. <br /> <br />Ms. Frolik stated that Staff and the Planning Commission don't know where towers will be' <br />located. The location of a tower depends on the needs of the celt company and their ability to <br />find a willing property owner with at least 10 acres of land in this proposed overlay district. She <br />also noted that there is a tower setback requirement in the new ordinance and it is 1.5 times the <br />height of the tower from adjacent homes. <br /> <br />Alien Sclwnidt - 7160 I81st Avenue N.W. - He assumed the City was relaxing the standards but <br />now understands that the standards are stricter. Inquired as to how the standard could be further <br />increased. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated that given the topographics of the area, he feels that the City has pushed <br />the restrictions as far as the consultant feels is reasonable under the law. He understands where <br /> <br />Planning Commission/January 2, 2001 <br /> Page_ <br /> <br />i <br /> <br /> <br />