Laserfiche WebLink
<br />and will be well within the compound. Regarding the size of the antennae, T-Mobile uses a six <br />foot antenna. He believes Sprint uses a four foot antennae and Nextel uses an eight foot <br />antennae. There is a substantial amount of insurance on each of these towers. T-Mobile has over <br />250 towers within the metro area, and over 600 sites all together between Minnesota, Wisconsin <br />and Iowa. At this point there has not been any major damage to residential properties or adjacent <br />properties whatsoever; the history of the towers should answer the question. <br /> <br />Mr. Szewski clarified his question is how close the antennas and potential antennas will encroach <br />upon the property line of the residential owners. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt clarified the antennae would be a minimum of 24 feet from the property line. <br />Given the engineering design, the tower would collapse on itself within the compound. <br /> <br />Mr. Jon Enstrom, 8702 l8lst Avenue NW, stated he has been approached by many cell phone <br />companies about locating a tower on his property. The City adopted an ordinance about five <br />years ago that they would like to have all cell phone towers put on existing structures, and that <br />this is the only way a cell phone structure would be installed in the City of Ramsey. The location <br />of this tower does not seem to be following those guidelines. The Commission should review the <br />options before assigning another tower that could possibly damage a neighboring property or be <br />an eyesore. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt replied Mr. 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 />Assistant Community Development Director Sylvia Frolik indicated she believes the distance <br />requirement is a one mile radius. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt pointed out the location of this tower is being done as an accommodation to the <br />City to allow land use the City is moving forward; they are trading one tower for another. He <br />believes the requirements of the ordinance have been met. <br /> <br />Mr. Enstrom stated there is an existing structure on his property that could work for a cell phone. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt asked how far Mr. Enstrom's structure is from this location. <br /> <br />Mr. Enstrom replied it is about five miles; his tower would give 14 to 16 mile radius coverage <br />and should be able to cover anything that is covered from here. <br /> <br />Mr. Erik Zaetsch, 6521 1 54th Lane NW, suggested the City reserve the right in the lease to locate <br />communication capabilities on the tower. He stated the City should receive a benefit from this <br />tower being put up other than moving it from one place to another. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/January 4, 2007 <br />Page 6 of 35 <br />