Laserfiche WebLink
i6) <br /> <br />17) <br /> <br />18) <br /> <br />Adopt Resolution #97-08-204 approving contract documents and specifications and <br />ordering advertisement for bids for Improvement Project #97-24 (City Hall roof <br />replacement) <br />Adopt Resolution #97-08-205 receiving bids and awarding contract for the 1997 Trail <br />Paving Projects <br />Adopt Resolution #97-08-206 approving 2nd partial (and final) payment to Allied <br />Blacktop, inc. for Improvement Projects #97-01 through #97-15, exclusive of #97-14 <br />(1997 Street Maintenance Program - Division A - Crack Filling) <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Zimmerman, Beahen and Beyer. <br />Voting No: None. Absent: CouncilmemberHaas Steffen. <br /> <br />COUNCIL BUSINESS <br /> <br />Case #1: <br /> <br />Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Personal Communication Tower; <br />Case of American Portable Telecom <br /> <br />Zoning Administrator Frolik stated that the City of Ramsey received a request for a conditional <br />use permit from American Portable Telecom (APT) to construct and operate a personal <br />communication service (PCS) tower on the Rum River Plaza property located at St. Francis <br />Boulevard and 167th Avenue. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and several <br />residents raised the issue of the possibility of adverse effects on property values at sites near the <br />proposed tower. Mr. Faust of the Anoka County Assessor's office could not say definitively that <br />it will not adversely affect property values, however, in his opinion, if it does, it would be <br />minimal. The City was furnished with a copy of a survey of six area assessors in which all stated <br />that they do not apply any type of discount on land values due to proximity to telecommunication <br />towers. During the Planning Commission's review, APT was informed by staff that, in order to <br />meet zoning requirements, the proposed tower site would need to be moved at least five feet to <br />the east. Also, two nearby property owners that attended the public hearing were opposed to the <br />site selected for the tower. They requested APT attempt to find another location on the parcel to <br />place the tower that would be farther from homes in the area. APT agreed to this request, <br />however, it was found there is no other site on the parcel suitable and they wish to continue with <br />plans to build on the proposed location. APT agreed to consider improving the screening of the <br />site. <br /> <br />Michelle Johnson, representing APT, stated that they had seriously considered moving the tower <br />but the existing power lines make it very difficult. The property owner has expressed some <br />concern also about moving the tower. <br /> <br />Ms. Frolik explained that the City's ordinance prohibits the location of towers between a <br />structure and street. In lieu of proceeding with this location, staff is recommending <br />implementing a landscape plan developed by our landscape intern and adding a privacy fence. <br /> <br />Ms. Johnson did not feel that her company would have any problem with the landscape and <br />screening plan. <br /> <br />City Council/August 26, 1997 <br /> Page 5 of 18 <br /> <br /> <br />