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

Home

also noted that there is a tower setback requirement in the new ordinance and it is 1.5 times the height of the tower from adjacent homes. __:~(':~'~i ~::'~' Alien Schmidt- 7160 181s~ Avenue N.W.- He assumed the City was relaxing thet~t~.d.~ards but now understands that the standards are stricter. Inquired as to how the standard'~0Uld'be further increased. Chairperson Nixt stated that given the topographics of the area, he feels, tha~':the':City has the restrictions as far as the consultant feels is reasonable under the iaw;-.He uhderstands the residents stand on towers and he understands that the resideh k-'-dofi'e'Want towers on every corner. Within those limits and dictates of federal law, the'~ CommissiOn has tried to get a compromise for the residents and interested commercia!-.c~ers who_::.~ .~...ve a legal right to put towers in the City limits. He further commented that..!~;}s, not unsyml~'a~etic to the concerns of the resident but the new ordinance is better than what the City had before' f°~'"~tandards. · (:,-.. :':-. .: .4. ?,~,. ..: ~'.- (-' John Enstrom - Asked if the City would be wilIing to ¢ommi~'tp -n,o,_-t condemning land for ¢¢II towers for those persons willing to sign a petition stating that they, da not want towers on their land. '"~" ~-~ ..... Ms. Frolik reiterated that without a willing pro~Perty owner, the possibi~i.t~ o:~ a tower is not an iSSUe. ~- . _' L "'~ ,?' ~-'-"-._ Myron Lewerenz - 7009 175'~ Avenue N-.W. - The,City'can co'demn any property they want. fought for this Country in Korea, but he w~lI.not l'et someone c0i~dernn his property for a tower. Ron I-~unt - Th~ City-is mak~n_~ the ordinance Stricter but that also puts pressure on people in this overlay district, 'This ordinance encourages towers i~'his area and it is sensitive to the City as a whole but Lnsensitive to his particular area. :~..--. Tony Zagaros - 9031 l_78'~..,&¥enue N.W, ~:-'Asked for further explanation about the use of consultant to hdp amend the 0rdi~an~-e. ':" ,~- "~haL~erson Nixt rep-tied that the direction was to research disallowing towers in the residential . "!:..','~"&~tri~, but we also Imew that 'we were pushing the limit. Because of R. amsey's unique ~"--" demograp~c characteristic wherein Ramsey is predominantly residential, to disallow towers in .,~- residential districts would exclude towers from a very large land mass. The City engaged a ~" consultant to Ix~Ip arrive-~t a reasonable compromise. This is ordinance is not guaranteeing that ~' ' there will be a:c~ll tower on all parcels in excess of t0 acres in size; there are currently $ or 6 towers in the City of P,,amsey and it not likely that there will be a need for another 32 towers, for instance. Tim ~ity does have to provide access to the cell companies. The City is not trying to s~gle out ~m_y property owner or assure that someone will have a tower; the City is trying to malce towers as less intrusive as possible. There have been meetings, public hearings and this ordnance is the culmination of $ months of work. Planning Commission/January 2, 2001 Page 12 of 15 -28- ! I I I I I I I