Agenda - Council - 01/23/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

of equipment that will be maneuvering on it. The site plan proposes a Class [I surface but ~taff recommends that a Class V be used in this area. Ms. Wald noted that the Applicant has not objected to any of the recommendatiori~;contained in City Staff Review Letter dated December 29. ,~ .?;~;-}: Motion by Commissioner Kociscak and seconded by Commissioner Reev..e'to recommen~I-that. City Council approve the site plan for T&G Land, Inc., contingent'upon db ~mp'li.ance with the ;;:-- City Staff Review Letter dated December 29, 2000. ' / .~.s~ -..'z :' - "~" Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Nixt, Commissi_o~fiers Kociscak; Reeve, Watson, and and Wivoda. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioners, J0hnson., and Griffiths. 'r~t':;~ PUBLIC HEARING/COMMISSION BUSINESS' ;"T-., /'.'; -~, Case #7: Creation of Tower Overlay District Chairperson Nixt closed the regular Po~i_on of the Planning Commission meeting at 8:45 p.m. in order to conduct the following public hearing. ~{{' ~:::.- Public Hearing : ' . , Chairperson Nixt called the public hearing'back to oi:~2:1~: at 8:4~:~p~m. Planner Pat Tru~i~eon stated that City Ordinan~bs w4re recently amended to restrict commercial towers in Residential Distrid~-to parcels at least* 10.acres in size in an area to be identified as the Towe.r_ Overlay District. Staff is recommending abproval of the ordinance to create the tower overlay,district. Subsequent to the publication- of tonights agenda, the City Attorney reviewed the ordinance~hnd directed staff to make some slight modifications. The current version of the ordinance was tl~en'distributed to the commissioners and Staff. John Enstr°mZ 8702 18 l~tAvenue N.W. - Stated he is concerned with the ordinance because he owns 120 acres-and he' has been approached by several companies to place towers on his property. He further stated that he is not in favor of a tower on his property even though he has ~,:)_~_ . the highest el~k~ition. . and tallest structure (NSP pole) in Ramsey (other than other commercial ~:,_ .'~ towers) on his.land- Mr. Enstrom stated that he has a cell phone and has never had a problem with service in his area and he questioned the need for more towers in this area; is a $100,000 tow'er for 200 residents justified? This overlay district is proposed to be permanent rural; there will:-not be a lot of development taking place in this area; why is there a need for cell towers in this area? These towers should be placed on public land such as City property and parks and undevelopable ~een areas. Will property values be lowered for parcels selected for placement of Planning Commission/January 2, 2001 Page 10 of 15 -26- I I I I I I I I I I I I