Minutes - Planning Commission - 01/02/2001

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. Allen Schmidt - 7160 181~t Avenue N.W. - He assumed the City was relaxing the standards but now understands that the standards are stricter. Inquired as to how the standard could be further increased. Chairperson Nixt stated that given the topographics of the area, he feels that the City has pushed the restrictions as far as the consultant feels is reasonable under the law. He understands where the residents stand on towers and he understands that the residents don't 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 commercial carriers who have a legal right to put towers in the City limits. He further commented that he is not unsympathetic to the concerns of the resident but the new ordinance is better than what the City had before for standards. John Enstrom - Asked if the City would be Willing to commit to not condemning land for cell towers for those persons willing to sign a petition stating that they do not want towers on their land. Ms. Frolik reiterated that without a willing property owner, the possibility of a tower is not an issue. Myron Lewerenz - 7009 175th Avenue N.W. - The City can condemn any property they want. I fought for this Country in Korea, but he will not let someone condemn his property for a tower. Ron Hunt - The City is making the ordinance stricter but that also puts pressure on people in this overlay district. This ordinance encourages towers in his area and it is sensitive to the City as a whole but insensitive to his particular area. Tony Zagaros - 9031 178* Avenue N.W. - Asked for further explanation about the use of consultant to help amend the ordinance. Chairperson Nixt replied that the direction was to research disallowing towers in the residential district, but we also knew that we were pushing the limit. Because of Ramsey's unique demographic 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 help arrive at a reasonable compromise. This is ordinance is not guaranteeing that there will be a cell tower on all parcels in excess of 10 acres in size; there are currently 5 or 6 towers in the City of Ramsey and it not likely that there will be a need for another 32 towers, for instance. The City does have to provide access to the cell companies. The City is not trying to single out any property owner or assure that someone will have a tower; the City is trying to make towers as less intrusive as possible. There have been meetings, public hearings and this ordinance is the culmination of 5 months of work. Planning Commission/January 2, 2001 Page 12 of 15