Ham Lake cell tower plan has residents, council talking

Reception along Lexington Avenue is awful to nonexistent, but no one seems to want a tower near where they live.

By PAUL LEVY, Star Tribune

Last update: June 11, 2009 - 1:42 PM

Print this story

Follow local news on Twitter

More from North Metro

Can you hear me now? Apparently not if you're calling by cell phone in the southeastern section of Ham Lake.

For years, residents of the Anoka County city have complained about lousy cell phone service along Lexington Avenue. But now that AT&T is considering erecting a cell tower near a residential area, opponents are getting their message across loud and clear.

"I'm not against cell phone towers," Jim Brock, a salesman from Ham Lake, said this week on his cell phone. "But if they build the tower near 136th and Lexington and it tips over, it will touch our property.

"I don't know why the city would even consider buying property in that area for the purpose of putting up a cell phone tower when the city already owns property at 149th and Lexington, property the city bought for that very purpose."

The radio transmission tower could be constructed on property the city owns and has reserved for a much-needed third fire station, Mayor Paul Meunier said. It's the same area that was targeted for a tower in 2001 -- until residential opposition pushed the City Council to reject a request by Qwest to build it.

At last week's City Council meeting, when AT&T offered plans to build a 190-foot tower in a different area of town, some of the 25 folks who signed an anti-tower petition years ago were waiting to be heard once again.

"We're just going to have to make people angry because we need cell phone service," Meunier said. "Drive down Lexington Avenue and your phone just cuts in and out. It's frustrating. I think everyone agrees."

Not in our back yard

But the city and AT&T have yet to agree on a site for a new tower. And unless there are zoning restrictions, federal law prohibits the banning of radio transmission towers.

"We can't zone them out of the city completely," said City Attorney Wilbur Dorn. "We have to accommodate them somewhere.

"No one wants it in their back yard. We're trying to find a site as far away from neighborhoods as possible, but still close enough to demand."

AT&T has talked about building on property owned by developer Scott Lennes -- possibly in an area that Brock says might affect his property. Meunier says there's enough room on the designated city-owned property for a new tower and a fire station.

"We've already surveyed the land and we own the land, so a lot of issues have already been taken care of," he said. And, he added, the City Council, which never shies from debate, seems to be in agreement about building the tower on the city-owned property.

Dorn suggested last week that the issue of considering the Lennes property be tabled. That would give the planning commission time to hold a public hearing on the fire station site June 22.

"We own that site -- and that's an economic consideration that can't be ignored," Dorn said.

The issue is expected to spark heated discussion at the next City Council meeting on Monday because of residents' concerns.

Jim and Cindy Brock, residents who led the petition drive in 2001, have said they don't want to interfere with an AT&T proposal that could affect Lennes, but they'd like the residents to be considered.

In fact, Cindy Brock said last week that she now prefers building a tower adjacent to a third fire station.

"I don't think it makes sense for the city to purchase additional property at taxpayers' expense when the city already owns property that was purchased for this reason," she said.

Paul Levy • 612-673-4419