My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Planning Commission - 09/05/2000
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Planning Commission
>
2000
>
Minutes - Planning Commission - 09/05/2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/20/2025 2:13:33 PM
Creation date
5/22/2003 9:35:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
09/05/2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
Ms. McMonigal noted that Qwest is the only carrier indicating a gap in coverage in the City of <br />Ramsey. She reviewed the coverage in Ramsey as indicated by Qwest. <br /> <br />Commissioner Dempsey questioned in terms of providing coverage is there separate <br />requirements for cell phones and are they required to provide coverage for all technologies. <br /> <br />Commissioner Reeve replied that the law is very broad and simply addresses technology. <br /> <br />Commissioner Dempsey inquired if the City were to allow 125 foot towers with co-locating, how <br />many towers would the City have. <br /> <br />Commissioner Reeve replied that there are six license holders that have the right to the area and <br />by the Telecommunication Law the City is obligated to give each one of them a tower. <br /> <br />Commissioner Dempsey stated that the City could allow for a 75 foot with an additional 15 feet <br />for each co-locator. <br /> <br />Commissioner Reeve stated that the Andover requirements are not out of line. He explained that <br />having the setback the height of the tower is not as important because most of the towers fall <br />onto themselves. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated that he did not see any rational reason for using the height of the tower <br />as the required setback. <br /> <br />Commissioner Reeve agreed. <br /> <br />Ms. McMonigal noted that there might be some advantages to requiring a smaller setback. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wivoda inquired if it would be possible to have a maximum height of 95 feet and <br />then if they want anything higher, they would have to allow for co-location. <br /> <br />Consensus of the Commission was to require a 150 foot setback requirement. <br /> <br />Commissioner Kociscak stated that he would not be in favor of towers in the residential area and <br />would stay with the 75 foot height requirement. <br /> <br />The Commission discussed at length the height of the tower as it relates to the coverage. <br /> <br />Commissioner Kociscak and Commissioner Wivoda were in favor of 75 foot height tower <br />requirement. <br /> <br />Commissioner Reeve, Commissioner Dempsey, and Commissioner Griffiths were in favor of a <br />125 foot height tower requirement. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/September 5, 2000 <br /> Page 11 of 13 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.