Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Chairperson Nixt observed the City is also creating the opportunity for additional co-location on <br />this tower, so they are solving future problems as welL He inquired if the trees will need to be <br />removed to accommodate the tower, as they account for much of the canopy on this site. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Dalnes replied that is possible; it will need to be determined what size of <br />staging facility will be needed. Also, there is quite a large grade change toward the property line <br />which may limit how far north the tower could be located. Those things will be taken into <br />consideration in the revision of this site. <br /> <br /> <br />, eactua1 compound; it is <br /> <br />Mr. Edwards clarified the tower will be located 10 to 20 <br />the compound that will be 10 feet from the prope <br /> <br />Mr. Robert Szewski, 17220 Tiger Street NW, a <br />and what the guarantee is that this tower will <br />property. <br /> <br />roperty line <br />esidential <br /> <br />Mr. Edwards replied these towers are over-engin de to accommodate several <br />antennas. As far as the apparatus that would be holding the as, they are bolted to a <br />bracket system that attaches to the tower; t about r feet from the tower <br />and will be well within the compound. of the ae, T-Mobile uses a six <br />foot antenna. He believes Sprint us e and Nextel uses an eight foot <br />antennae. There is a substantial amo e towers. T-Mobile has over <br />250 towers within the metro area, and etween Minnesota, Wisconsin <br />and Iowa. At this point there h b 0 residential properties or adjacent <br />properties whatsoever; the hist the question. <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Szewski clarified his <br />upon the property line of t <br /> <br />as and potential antennas will encroach <br /> <br />be a minimum of 24 feet from the property line. <br />llapse on itself within the compound. <br /> <br />this <br />of this t <br />options be <br />an eyesore. <br /> <br />ue NW, stated he has been approached by many cell phone <br />n his property. The City adopted an ordinance about five <br />ve all cell phone towers put on existing structures, and that <br />cture would be installed in the City of Ramsey. The location <br />llowing those guidelines. The Commission should review the <br />tower that could possibly damage a neighboring property or be <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt reph . Enstrom is correct; that ordinance is still on the books. However, <br />the requirement that you co-locate on an existing tower is tied to the ability of that co-location <br />source to accommodate the cellular provider's wireless needs. This means the resource currently <br />available has to be sufficient for the purposes of the cellular provider. He understands research <br />was done and that is not the case given the alternatives that are currently available. <br /> <br />Associate Planner DaInes replied that is correct. Also, one tower is being removed. <br /> <br />-331- <br />