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

Home

I1 ,I I I I I I I I I I towers? Ramsey should contact all cell phone companies and see which one will give the best package. Peter Mayer - 7190 175~ Avenue N.W. - Inquired as to how many towers in this area if this ordinance is passed; is there means to stop someone from and putting a tower on it? Ms. Frolik replied that the standards were recently amended to increase t~0,,.'wer radius from ½ mile to 1 mile. All construction of towers requires a con8~ii~ ese ~it and vacant properties are eligible for a tower. Ron Hunt - 17455 Nowthen Blvd. N.W. - Stated that h¢!lSidissat~sfie~,~th Ramsey s planmng because,it continues to devalue his property. He ,;w~' :'Offered $1,00~iO00 for his land and Ramsey s comprehensive plan has devalued his land'.Se6~'&fise}:i~t has be~n(ii~t~l~;,that his land is in an area that will never be densely developed. He is 9ery di~ti~fied'~i.th thi~i'plan and now his property will be further devalued by including it in the propo~'~d;it~' system. He has lived in Ramsey for 53 years and he is very disappointed that now some0' an buy lO, acres, put in a cell tower and there are no setback recLuirements; there should be ~i' ck neighboring homes. There are many large parceii}".that,,~abut his property and hi'~;!'.' ors can put in commercial towers and even tho,.u~:."he 'li:"i d,. he has nothing to,~:,,~;"about it because it meets the conditional use pelf crit'~ st/8 d:_ e restricteg~6' park land and more densely populated areas where'th~y wilI:~8'~, some good~i:!:'i~:~:w~[have to compensate people for devaluation of property. Mr. Hunt stEi'~d that h~'{~"~i'¢'~chooi-{~kh~r and the devaluation of his property huns and the City is making deci'~}:0~ns th~{,i:ffect hi out talking to him. Skip Swanson .,-.'-8780 18?.Avenue N.W. ~:,}i~ated he is concerned that someone could put a tower on the/~trc~l next to'him and because ~£'fhe.features of the land, the tower could be more visible to him-than to the o~/~r of the propertyE~hi;h the tower is located. That situation will make it" harder for him to Sell his property, t:fi~t/~'Wers are good enough for residential parcels, then "Wl~y Can't:they be lo~afed on parks and?~ilands? Stated that he has never had a problem with his cell phoneand inquired::.ifthere i'sa need for extra towers. ""~aron Zagaros - 90,3I ,178'h Avenue N.W. - Stated that they are always trying to fight for their .:C?(!'5:.:?'"f~nd: mey moved froln:East StTP~aul to Ramsey onto 3.75 acres and they paid a good price for their lan~i'.::'First they had t6'c°nt;nd with the easements for the new gas lines and now the City wants to put cel. l towers on,their land. A neighbor could put a tower on his land that will be highly visible'~r0m.....,.,.,, their back yard. Inquired as to where the towers will be located. Chairperson Nixt stated that the City tried to draft an ordinance that increases the requirements for cell tower'cOmpanies..With the previous ordinance, these companies were subject to a more Msl. Fi'olik stated that Staff and the Planning Commission don't know where towers will be located. The location of a tower depends on the needs of the cell company and their ability to find a willing property owner with at least 10 acres of land in th~s proposed overlay district. She Planning Commission/January 2, 2001 Page 11 of 15 -27-