100111_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment D Planninq File 09-031 Request by Clearwire, LLC for approval of a 150-foot telecommunication tower on the City Hall Campus, 2660 — 2661 Civic Center Drive, as a Conditional Use, pursuant to City Code, Sections 1013 (General Requirements) and 1014 (Conditional Use) Chair poherty opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 09-031 at 7:02 p.m. Mr. Lloyd reviewed the request of the applicant for a Conditional Use to erect the tower, convey it to the City, and lease space for their telecommunication equipment on and at the base of the tower; making the City a potential partner in the application in addition to its being the landowner. Mr. Lloyd advised that Clearwire provides fixed Internet access as well as mobile access; and that this was only one of several hundred proposed towers at sites throughout the metropolitan area; with current tower owners contacted before exploring development of new towers. Mr. Lloyd advised that the existing monopole on the City Hall campus was already at capacity, thus the proposal to construct an additional tower at the proposed location. Mr. Lloyd advised that staff was unable to find any significant negative impact, with wireless transmission equipment providing immediate benefit to City operations, and allowing for potential future benefit for wireless meter reading and other technology. Mr. Lloyd advised that staff in several City departments supported the requested action; and staff recommended APPROVAL of the request by Clearwire, LLC for construction of a 150-foot telecommunication tower on the City Hall Campus, 2660 — 2661 Civic Center Drive as a CONDITIONAL USE, pursuant to City Code, Section 1014.01, and subject to conditions as detailed in Section 9 of the staff report dated November 4, 2009. � Discussion among staff and Commissioners included clarification of the actual height of the existing tower (150'); � similarity of construction to the existing tower; and review of proposed locations other than that being considered, � and rationale for dispensing with those other locations. � Further discussion included economic incentives for the City to support this new tower; with that potential � acknowledged based on lease payments and additional revenues that would provide economic incentives; � however, noting that the recommendation at the Planning Commission level needed to be focused on strict land � use considerations; with the City Council ultimately considering financial incentives and final approval. Staff � advised that, if the request was approved, a contract would need to be negotiated by other City staff with ultimate � approval of any such contract by the City Council. 2 Commissioner poherty opined that, if it was not good economically for the City, he was unsure of his support for . the request. . Mr. Lloyd suggested that, even if there were no revenue gains from construction of the tower, the City could . realize operational benefits for their wireless needs. . Mr. Paschke suggested that the discussion refocus on the land use. . Commissioner Boerigter concurred, noting that the Planning Commission's charge should focus only on viable . land use applicability; and the need for the City Council to make a determination, after that land use approval, . whether the tower was economically feasible. . Terre Heiser, City of Roseville's Director of Information Technology (IT) . Mr. Heiser spoke to consideration of other sites on campus, five (5) in all; with two (2) in the OVAL parking lot . directly on County Road C, with one location considered in the southwest corner, and one location in the � southeast corner; another site on the northwest corner of the Public Works garage along Woodhill Drive; and � another behind the existing Public Works salt storage facility. Mr. Heiser noted that the OVAL parking locations � would have necessitated elimination of parking spots (8) and restricting and/or impacting traffic flow within the lot. � Mr. Heiser advised that the other location along Woodhill Drive, following subsequent review by the Fire � Department, Public Works Department, City Manager, and IT staff, would have required realignment of a � driveway, which would increase its slope and create problematic access to accommodate equipment. Mr. Heiser � advised that the preferred location behind the salt storage lot was problematic since it was currently fully occupied � by equipment and construction materials, with no other available storage location. Mr. Heiser noted that, if Fire � Station No. 1 had been removed by now, that site could have been considered; however, he noted that this would � also seriously restrict any future campus expansion for another facility. : Mr. Heiser advised that the proposed location provided enough distance between the two towers to prevent � interference between them; with the location chosen based on the parking lot location and pathway and driveway access, as well as the locations of the existing tower and other visible elevations (i.e., high voltage power lines). Page 1 of 3