Laserfiche WebLink
of equipment that will be maneuvering on it. The site plan proposes a Class II surface but Staff <br />recommends that a Class V be used in this area. <br /> <br />Ms. Wald noted that the Applicant has not objected to any of the recommendations contained in <br />City Staff Review Letter dated December 29. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Kociscak and seconded by Commissioner Reeve to reCommend that <br />City Council approve the site plan for T&G Land, Inc., contingent upon compliance with the <br />City Staff Review Letter dated December 29, 2000. <br /> <br />Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Nixt, Commissioners Kociscak, Reeve, Watson, and <br />and Wivoda. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioners Johnson and Griffiths. <br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARING/COMMISSION BUSINESS <br /> <br />Case #7: Creation of Tower Overlay District <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt closed the regular portion of the Planning Commission meeting at 8:45 p.m. in <br />order to conduct the following public hearing. <br /> <br />Public Hearing <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt called the public hearing back to order at 8:45 p.m. <br /> <br />Presentation <br /> <br />Planner Pat Trudgeon stated that City Ordinances were recently amended to restrict commercial <br />towers in Residential Districts to parcels at least 10 acres in size in an area to be identified as the <br />Tower Overlay District. Staff is recommending approval of the ordinance to create the tower <br />overlay district. Subsequent to the publication of tonights agenda, the City Attorney reviewed <br />the ordinance and directed staff to make some slight modifications. The current version of the <br />ordinance was then distributed to the Commissioners and Staff. <br /> <br />Citizen Input <br /> <br />John Enstrom - 8702 181st Avenue N.W. - Stated he is concerned with the ordinance because he <br />owns 120 acres and he has been approached by several companies to place towers on his <br />property. He further stated that he is not in favor of a tower on his property even though he has <br />the highest elevation and tallest structure (NSP pole) in Ramsey (other than other commercial <br />towers) on his land. Mr. Enstrom stated that he has a cell phone and has never had a problem <br />with service in his area and he questioned the need for more towers in this area; is a $100,000 <br />tower for 200 residents justified? This overlay district is proposed to be permanent rural; there <br />will not be a lot of development taking place in this area; why is there a need for cell towers in <br />this area? These towers should be placed on public land such as City property and parks and <br />undevelopable green areas. Will property values be lowered for parcels selected for placement of <br />Planning Commission/January 2, 2001 <br />Page 10 of 15 <br /> <br /> <br />