CC_Minutes_2010_0111 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes -Wednesday, January 06, 2010 Page 2 1 to action taken at last night's Parks and Recreation Commission meeting related 2 specifically to Planning File 09-032; attached hereto and made a part thereof. 3 4 Commissioner Gisselquist, while recognizing the potential revenue from tower users 5 on city property, expressed his lack of support for locating towers in any park, 6 including Acorn Park. 7 8 Additional discussion included potential viability and feasible locations on commercial 9 property (i.e., Rice Street corridor at County Road C - Walgreen's new devrrlopment) 10 rather than on park property and more significant impacts to residentiail properties; 1 1 staff's note that revenue considerations should not be part of a land use decision- 12 making, consistency with the proposed location on city-owned property and multiple- 13 users with the comprehensive plan guidance by promoting communications 14 infrastructure as a service for residents and to' keep Roseville more competitive in 15 multiple marketplaces with new telecommunications on existing-towers when feasible; 16 and impacts to equipment functionality by restricting the t~mount of space for ground 17 equipment for multiple users. 18 ~ ~ 19 Commissioner Wozniak questioned whether the City was trying to maintain the park 20 as park as opposed to trying to keep the tower away from residential properties; and 21 questioned why the applicant had chosen that location in the park rather than areas 22 along the fringe of the park. Commissioner Wozniak expressed his preference for a 23 tower location on the edge of the park as a transitional aspect rather than within the 24 park's interior footage. 25 26 Mr. Lloyd opined that a balance t~etween int+erferirig with park space may be 27 preferable to encroaching on residential properties; with the broader public bearing 28 the burden of the chosen location rather than it being borne privately by only a few 29 adjacent residential property owners.- 30 31 Commissioner Wozniak observed that .property owners adjacent to a park also 32 benefited from that txoximity. i 33 34 Additional discussion included d>.5ptaying images and a scale mock-up of the height at 35' 150' in oon~rison.to the tree height at approximately 80'. 36 37 Bob Willmus, Cl~uairaf Parks and Recreation Commission 38 At the request of fir Doherty, Mr. Willmus provided a summary of the discussion 39 held a# fast night's Parks and Recreation Commission meeting and their opinions in 40 reviewirig.tt»s request. 41 42 Mr. Willmus advised that the Commission's formal action based on the proposal as 43 resente was a motion to deny support for the request, based in part on the Master 44 Plan efforts currently underway and how Acorn Park future activities may be retasked 45 in the~uture. 46 47 1VIr. Willmus advised that, other questions and discussion included how pending 48 zoning code revisions under the new Comprehensive Plan may impact Acorn Park 49 now and in the future; whether this type of use is desired in a City park; discussion of 50 the precedent in Reservoir Woods Park, but clarification that the tower was already in 51 place before the property became a park; and the difficulty in planning "what if' 52 scenarios when impacts were unknown at this time. 53 54 Mr. Willmus noted that Acorn Park had a large, heavily-used Frisbee Golf Course on 55 the park's fringes; and also noted that the proposed location of the tower would serve