My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf10-010
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
2010
>
pf10-010
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/29/2014 12:03:00 PM
Creation date
7/2/2013 8:16:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
10-010
Planning Files - Type
Conditional Use Permit
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
70
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• <br />• Attachment E . <br />i Request by Clearwire, LLC for approval of telecommunication tower facility as a CONDITIOANL USE at <br />2 2489 Rice Street <br />s Chair poherty opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 10-010 at 6:34 p.m. <br />4 Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd reviewed staffs analysis of the request by Clearwire, LLC for approval of a <br />5 telecommunication tower facility as a CONDITIONAL USE at 2489 Rice Street (PF10-010), as detailed in the <br />6 Request for Planning Commission Action dated April 7, 2010. Mr. Lloyd specifically noted Condition "a" related to <br />7 pending wetland delineation to determine the actual fifty foot (50') setback once ground conditions are suitable for <br />8 that determination. <br />9 Staff recommended approval of the requested CONDITIONAL USE for Clearwire, LLC to allow the installation of <br />l0 125' telecommunication tower at 2489 Rice Street; based on the comments and findings of Sections 4— 5 and the <br />] 1 conditions of Section 6 of the staff report dated April 7, 2010. <br />] 2 Discussion included allowances for possible relocation of the tower on the lot and relative to adjacent residential <br />Is properties, and the definition of "significant" any potential relocation may be at the City Council level if the <br />14 Commission approved the request as recommended by staff. <br />15 Further discussion included anticipated city-wide antenna network based on Information Technology needs in the <br />16 community; previous approvals to-date; and existing ordinances addressing additional antenna versus additional <br />17 towers. <br />38 Commissioner Gottfried expressed concerns with the proposed, yet pending, setback (Attachment D) between the <br />19 proposed tower facility and the most adjacent residence on the west; and any potential hazards to that property <br />20 owner if the tower should fall. <br />27 Mr. Paschke noted that existing towers were located in even closer proximity to residential properties, and as <br />22 indicated in previous presentations to the Commissioners, location was not restricted based on that concern, as <br />23 the towers were being engineered to facilitate any structure failure, by collapsing on themselves; and suggested <br />24 that the applicanYs representative could address those concems as well. <br />25 Commissioner Gottfried opined that remained a point of concern for him, recognizing that the concern may be <br />26 perceived versus actual. <br />27 Commissioner Cook sought clarification on setback requirements from Rice Street (front side); with Mr. Lloyd <br />28 responding that the setback was related to the actual building structure in a B-1 Zoning District at thirty feet (30'). <br />29 Additional discussion included rationale in the applicanYs request for this site after unsuccessful attempts to <br />3C locate on public property in the City's Acorn park; access to the site for initial construction and ongoing <br />31 maintenance; and the intent of the applicant for possible relocation going to the east or west, rather than <br />32 elsewhere on the site. <br />33 Commissioner Wozniak requested clarification from staff on the addressed used for public notice of this Public <br />34 Hearing, whether it was 2489 04 2499 Rice Street; with Mr. Lloyd displaying an actual notice post card, indicating <br />35 that either property location would have served the standard five hundred foot (500') area. <br />36 Applicant Representative, David W. Fischer (2324 University Avenue W) with Buell Consulting <br />37 Mr. Fischer advised that he was attending in place of Mr. Tony Vavoulis who was currently on vacation. <br />38 Mr. Fischer provided engineering provisions for potential monopole collapses, with the top section designed to <br />39 buckle in the shape of a"J" but not touching the ground; and offered to provide staff and the Commission with a <br />40 letter detailing the safeguards for such a collapse. Mr. Fischer addressed potential relocations options on the <br />4] property as suggested by Commissioners; but assured them of the applicanYs intent to remain at least fifty feet <br />42 (50') from the wetland; and that they would continue to work with staff and the property owner on that actual <br />43 location. <br />44 Further discussion ensued on the wetland delineation, seasonal soil conditions, and water table adjustments for <br />45 seasonable norms to allow proper assessment. <br />4b Public Comment <br />47 Beverly Schmidt; 2442 Rice Street, Trailer #85, Little Canada (mobile home park directly across Rice <br />48 Street from the proposed tower site) <br />49 Ms. Schmidt had several questions related to impacts to residents of the mobile home park related to signal <br />50 interference with land and cell phone lines and reception, as well as for any alarm systems; area traffic signal <br />51 lights; or potential lightning strikes; and any additional significant traffic from the location of this pole at that site. <br />Page 1 of 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.