2010-02-09_PR Comm Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

MEMORANDUM Meeting Location is Roseville City Hall 2660 Civic Center Drive To: Parks and Recreation Commission From: Lonnie Brokke Date: February 2, 2010 Tuesday, February 9, 2010 Re: Notes for Commission Meeting on 1. Introductions/Public Comment Invited Commissioners and staff will be introduced. Public participation and public comment is encouraged. 2. Approval of Minutes of the January 5, 2010 Meeting Enclosed is a copy of the minutes of January 5, 2010. Please be prepared to approve or amend. Requested Commission Action : Approve/amend minutes of the meeting of January 5, 2010. 3. Communications Tower (Clearwire Proposal) at Acorn Park This is an item that has been referred back to you by the City Council for additional analysis and a renewed recommendation. th You toured Acorn Park on September 19 to discuss a proposal by Clearwire Communications to install a data (Wi-Fi) antenna that included a 120 ft. pole and a 7x7 ft. ground cabinet to house the electronics (a single use provider concept). The specific proposal was to remove and replace one of the hockey rink light poles with a taller pole (from 35 ft. to 120 ft.) and install the data antenna on the top, essentially a dual use. The hockey rink lights would be reattached at the same height on that same pole. The pole was proposed to be a similar dimension to the light pole. This proposal appeared to be workable and be relatively unobtrusive for the park and its current use. The proposed lease was estimated to be $1200 per month with all upfront costs covered by Clearwire. In order to limit the number of poles in any particular area, the Community Development Department Planning Staff determined that the zoning code suggests a co-location on towers be considered over a single provider. This would require a higher (150’) and larger dimension (4’-5’) pole and a significant amount more ground space for the electronics, i.e. 24 x 24 and larger, and may include a building to accomodate the needs. With this specific proposal, the City is the property owner and has the discretion to support the proposals or not. At your November 2, 2009 meeting you recommended to the City Council that they approve the single provider concept (Wi-Fi only), with the specific guidelines as outlined. In the same recommendation, you suggested that a co-location scenario would have a much greater impact to the park and its aesthetics and use, and something that you were uncomfortable with being in the park, especially given how active Acorn Park is and that the City is in the process of updating the Park and Recreation System Master Plan. At your January 5, 2010 meeting, you recommended to the City Council that they deny the co- location tower, primarily because of the: aesthetics, potential disruption of use of the park, timing of the master plan process and the potential of future re-tasking the park and the tower and mechanical space being a disruption and something that would need to be planned around. At the January 6, 2010 Planning Commission meeting, they also recommended to the City Council that they deny the request, largely because of the Master Plan effort going on and the inappropriateness of a large tower in a park setting. At this meeting the planning staff recommended approval based on the co-location code interpretation.