Agenda - Council - 02/13/2007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

and will be well within the compound. Regarding the size of the antennae, T- Mobile uses a six foot antenna. He believes Sprint uses a four foot antennae and Nextel uses an eight foot antennae. There is a substantial amount of insurance on each of these towers. T- Mobile has over • 250 towers within the metro area, and over 600 sites all together between Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa. At this point there has not been any major damage to residential properties or adjacent properties whatsoever; the history of the towers should answer the question. Mr. Szewski clarified his question is how close the antennas and potential antennas will encroach upon the property line of the residential owners. Chairperson Nixt clarified the antennae would be a minimum of 24 feet from the property line. Given the engineering design, the tower would collapse on itself within the compound. Mr. Jon Enstrom, 8702 181 Avenue NW, stated he has been approached by many cell phone companies about locating a tower on his property. The City adopted an ordinance about five years ago that they would like to have all cell phone towers put on existing structures, and that this is the only way a cell phone structure would be installed in the City of Ramsey. The location of this tower does not seem to be following those guidelines. The Commission should review the options before assigning another tower that could possibly damage a neighboring property or be an eyesore. Chairperson Nixt replied Mr. Enstrom is correct; that ordinance is still on the books. However, the requirement that you co- locate on an existing tower is tied to the ability of that co- location source to accommodate the cellular provider's wireless needs. This means the resource currently • available has to be sufficient for the purposes of the cellular provider. He understands research was done and that is not the case given the alternatives that are currently available. Associate Planner Dalnes replied that is correct. Also, one tower is being removed. Assistant Community Development Director Sylvia Frolik indicated, she believes the distance requirement is a one mile radius: Chairperson Nixt pointed out the location of this tower is being done as an accommodation to the City to allow land use the City is moving forward; they are trading one tower for another. He believes the requirements of the ordinance have been met. Mr. Enstrom stated there is an existing structure on his property that could work for a cell phone. Chairperson Nixt asked how far Mr. Enstrom's structure is from this location. Mr. Enstrom replied it is about five miles; his tower would give 14 to 16 mile radius coverage and should be able to cover anything that is covered from here. Mr. Erik Zaetsch, 6521 154 Lane NW, suggested the City reserve the right in the lease to locate communication capabilities on the tower. He stated the City should receive a benefit from this tower being put up other than moving it from one place to another. • Planning Commission /January 4, 2007 Page 6 of 35