Laserfiche WebLink
<br />He also noted that property adjacent to existing towers have not been deterred rrom new <br />development. The tower is considered an asset to a business park. He noted that the <br />city's water tower site was reviewed but no decision has been made on whether it will be <br />available. <br /> <br />Member Thomas stated that the property along County Road C, for the most part, is <br />assisted by city financial subsidies; thereby, not making it a good representation of market- <br />driven development adjacent to a tower. She asked how it would be possible to determine <br />the impact based on technology that is coming online. It may not be the right site. There <br />may be other sites. <br /> <br />Member Wietecki asked how close must it be to the customers. He noted that the <br />Comprehensive Plan is changing ITom industrial to business and asked if there were other <br />areas in Roseville possible for such a tower. He asked that the study be continued. <br /> <br />Member Wall asked if the tower could go west of35W. The applicants stated they could <br />not find land west of35W. Wietecki volunteered the city staff to help find additional sites. <br /> <br />Mr. Buell stated that the soils on the H&W site are poor, and could not be used for <br />buildings. He noted that once the tower is in place, they are not noticed by the general <br />public. <br /> <br />Member Roberts asked what is the range of coverage ITom one tower. Jim Leiss, <br />OneComm/Buell Construction Manager, stated that the FAA has approved the height of <br />the tower and there are 20 sites under construction this year along the 694/494 ring. One <br />tower will cover approximately a 5 mile radius. <br /> <br />Member Thomas asked if the FCC had been called to determine if there was interference. <br />Member Wietecki stated that the land use is simply not compatible for a tower. <br /> <br />Member Wall asked if a tower could be built on top of the city's water tower. The <br />applicants responded that it would be more advantageous to construct a tower adjacent to <br />the water tower rather than on top of it. <br /> <br />MOTION: Member Thomas moved, seconded by Member Wietecki, to continue the <br />discussion to the September 14th Planning Commission to allow more time to review <br />alternative sites in the Roseville area. <br /> <br />Roll Call: <br /> <br />Ayes: <br /> <br />Thomas, Wall, Roberts, Sandstrom, Rengel, Wietecki <br /> <br />Nays: None <br /> <br />13 <br />