My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/06/2000
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2000
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/06/2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 9:22:51 AM
Creation date
9/9/2003 8:47:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
06/06/2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
157
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
Mr. Mitchell stated he cannot answer for Arial or APT and has not researched it but he does not <br />think it would go over very well, He explained that they would be asked to take their tower <br />down to construct a higher tower to meet U.S. West's needs. <br /> <br />Councilmember Anderson stated the City wants the least number of towers that can serve <br />multiple users. <br /> <br />Ms. Bocian explained the current tower would need to be taken down for a higher one to be <br />erected to meet their target criteria, She stated they have been asked to consider that in other <br />areas but it has never been done. <br /> <br />Mr. Landowski asked if they have not been allowed to share the tower or if it is a financial issue. <br />He stated the carrier by LeTourneaus is willing to share but wants to be paid. <br /> <br />Councilmember Connolly stated it is also a height issue. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated that because of the competitive na~ture,, of the business, a carrier may not be <br />willing to allow a competitor on their tower. <br /> ..,' <br />Ms. Bocian stated they originally looked at existing antemnas and buildings which is the quickest <br />and cheapest option since they do not need to build a tower. She stated it is not a money issue <br />and they are currently doing deals with APT. Ms. Bocian commented on the cost to construct a <br />tower and added cost to accommodate additional users. <br /> <br />Councilmember Connolly stated the Council can deny this tower because of the height but not if <br />the height was changed to 75 feet at this site. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich stated they would have to comply with all requirements of the ordinance. <br /> <br />Councilmember Connolly asked if they can erect other 75 foot towers if they conform. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich stated that is correct, with a CUP. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendr/ksen asked if the CUP suggests they will facilitate the additional three or <br />four users on the new tower. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Frolik stated the ordinance requires that and the Staff <br />recommendation addresses that issue as well. <br /> <br />Councilmember Connolly asked what the screening and fencing requirements are for the 75 foot <br />towers. <br /> <br />City Council/April 11, 2000 <br /> Page 14 of 29 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.