pf09-032 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

�.0 a:�ch�:K<��.�u :' S.1 City of Roseville owns the property at 286 County Road C, which has a Comprehensive '? Plan designation of Park & Open Space (POS) and an identical zoning classification of �-3 Park & Open Space (POS). �' S.2 This CotvD��r�oNAL USE request has been prompted by the applicant's desire to erect the �� tower, convey it to the City, and lease space for their telecommunication equipment on `�� and at the base of the tower, which makes the City a partner in the application in addition �- to being the landowner. ��:� 6.0 STAFF ComMENTs '�� 6.1 Although Roseville City staff has continued to work with Clearwire's application for '� approval of a telecommunication tower facility as a CONDITIONAL USE in Acorn Park, ! conflicts persist between the policies that guide the activities and recommendations of G�' various City Departments. As a specific example, the Parks and Recreation Department is 4;> responsible for maintaining a high quality experience for park users and believes that a �= telecommunication facility suitable for multiple service providers is inappropriate in i� Acorn Park, whereas Community Development staff believes that the proposed facility is �t% consistent with the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of the 4� zoning code and, therefore, ought to be approved. t:; 6.2 This impasse appears to be a result of the absence of a City policy for the siting of !_� telecommunications towers. Without a general City policy for determining when or �', whether Roseville, as a property owner, is interested in locating telecommunication >' infrastructure on City-owned property, the City is unable to answer this question as it ��<' applies specifically to Acorn Park. 6.3 Given the City's inability to act on the specific land use request in the face of lingering uncertainty on the broader policy question, City staff has asked whether Clearwire is willing to withdraw the application since withdrawal would provide an opporiunity to resolve the policy issue without the pressure of the land use application. Clearwire was not interested in withdrawing, and this is the last City Council meeting prior to the deadline for final action on the application. ��) %.O RECOMMENDATION The City Attorney iecomrnends denial of coNDITIONAL USE proposal, based on the following findings: '% a. as the co-applicant and property owner in the proposal, the City of Roseville does not support the application at this time; and - b. the City of Roseville lacks a policy that adequately addresses the location of _., telecommunication inftastructure on City-owned properties to minimize negative impacts with respect to the standard conditional use review criteria. PF09-032 RCA 032910 (3).doc Page 2 of 3 � �