My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 02/13/2001
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2001
>
Agenda - Council - 02/13/2001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/25/2025 12:19:08 PM
Creation date
9/4/2003 10:55:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
02/13/2001
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
285
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
I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />i <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Commissioner Wivoda stated that the lattice tower along Armstrong Boulevard is the most <br />aesthetically obvious tower in the City. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt inquired as to how strongly City staffs feel about requiring the monopole. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Frolik replied quite strongly, because there is an opportunity <br />on the west side of Ramsey Boulevard for new development and they would like to protect the <br />aesthetics in that area. <br /> <br />Commissioner Kociscak stated that the lattice tower allows for four carriers and a monopole <br />allows for three, but if the water tower is going to be able to provide for more carriers, the <br />monopole might be more appropriate. <br /> <br />Mr. Hall replied that from their standpoint they wou2zl prefer to stay- with the self supporting <br />tower. He stated that the water tower location may not be a suitable location for some carriers <br />because it is not directly adjacent to Highway #10. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt inquired if the applicant would agree to constructing a monopole if the <br />Commission makes that recommendation. <br /> <br />Mr. Hall replied that they would agree to a monopole if the City so requires. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated that finding of fact #19 should read "..four total users'; rather than "..four <br />additional users.". And finding of fact # 17 should be added to read: "That the completion of the <br />water tower, currently under construction, will provide the opportunity for an additional cellular <br />wireless antenna site in close proximity to the applicants proposed location." <br /> <br />Motion by Chairperson Nixt, seconded by Commissioner Wivoda, to recommend that City <br />Council adopt Findings of Fact as amended, relating to a request from American Tower <br />Corporation for a conditional use permit to construct a telecommunication tower at 14165 <br />Ramsey Boulevard. <br /> <br />Motion Carried. Voting Yes:" Chairperson Nixt, Commissioners Wi¥oda, Griffiths, and <br />Kociscak. Voting No: None. Abstain: Commissioner Reeve. Absent: Commissioner Johnson. <br /> <br />Motion by COmmissioner Kociscak, seconded by Commissioner Wivoda, to recommend that <br />City Council approve the request for a conditional use permit based on the Findings of Fact for a <br />monopole structure, and adopt a resolution declaring terms of same. <br /> <br />Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Nixt, Commissioners Kociscak, Wivoda, and <br />Griffiths. Voting No: None. Abstain: Commissioner Reeve. Absent: Commissioner Johnson. <br /> <br />Case #2: <br /> <br />Request for Preliminary Plat Review of Orchard Hills; Case of Homestead <br />Multi~Family Development <br /> <br />Planning Commission/December 5, 2000 <br /> Page 4 of 17 <br /> <br />-243- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.