My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/06/2000
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2000
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/06/2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 9:21:53 AM
Creation date
9/9/2003 8:26:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
03/06/2000
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.
/
358
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
Commissioner Johnson replied that there are cul-de-sacs in the City that are very long and could <br />use a sidewalk as well as temporary cul-de-sacs with the possibility of future expansion. <br /> <br />Chairperson Anderson noted that anything over 600 feet for a cul-de-sac would require a <br />variance and the issue could be addressed at that time. ' <br /> <br />The Commission directed Mr. Boos to amend the proposed ordinance to eliminate the <br />requirement for sidewalks on all cul-de-sacs in a single family zone with no possibility as a <br />through street. <br /> <br />Case #6: Review Tower Ordinance . <br /> <br />Conml!inity Development Assistant Barnett stated that as a follow-up to the US West'Wireless <br />application, both the Planning Commission and City Council have determined that a review of <br />the City's tower ordinance is appropriate, especially with respect to telecommunication towers <br />being placed in residential districts. The Commission was presented with information regarding <br />the ordinance and the history behind the ad. option of the ordinance. <br /> <br />Chairperson Anderson noted that the Council returned the US West application to the Planning <br />Commission and questioned why. In reviewing the current ordinance the 'only question he has is <br />whether the City wanted to permit towers in a residential district at all. All of the other <br />information seemed to be very well thought out. <br /> <br />Commissioner Nixt replied that under the Telecommunications Act, the City cannot totally <br />prohibit the towers, but they can limit where they are located. <br /> <br />Commissioner Nixt stated that the City needs to allow a reasonable locations to construct the <br />towers, but that is difficult to determine with changing technologies. . .... <br /> <br /> ' '- :" ' i:'~:'- ' '~ : ":: <br />Commissioner Dempsey stated that if the City takes a proactive role in the lo~ation of the towers; <br />then the impact on residents is considered, which is important. ...~ . . .:: ,. ..:~ ...~ .. <br /> <br /> ·' ,..-' ~ . , ;, .. ~..- ' .. . '. j., '..': , , ."}.~ <br />Commissioner:Johnson 'stated that in his 'oPinion there are locations in the northern part of the <br />City that would not impact residential areas. ~ ...:.: :. .. <br /> <br />Commissioner Nixt recommended that staff conduct more specific tower research. He suggested <br />obtaining input from an outside source as to appropriate locations for the'towers.. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson stated that he would like some input on appropriate height for the towers <br />and what the industry says in regards to height in comparison to other cities. <br /> <br />Commissioner Dempsey inquired as to the number of users allowed to use a tower. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/February 1, 2000 <br /> Page 8 of 10 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.