CC_Minutes_2010_0111 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes -Wednesday, January 06, 2010 Page 3 1 as the primary focus when accessing the park from County Road C and whether that 2 was the aesthetic representation desired by the community for Roseville parks, with 3 the Parks and Recreation Commission expressing a resounding "no" to that prospect. 4 5 Mr. Willmus suggested that it would be prudent and timely for the Planning 6 Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and the City Council to step back 7 and look at current code and ask if those are the types of uses we want in our parks; 8 do we want to force those towers in parks; or force them to other potential city-held 9 properties with commercial use (i.e., fire house locations; city hall campus). 10 1 1 Chair Doherty sought to clarify if the Parks and Recreation Commission would have 12 supported approval in general if not for their Master Plan process. 13 14 Mr. Willmus, from his personal perspective, opined that they most likely would not 15 have approved it anyway; however, clarified that the action taken by the Parks and 16 Recreation Commission was focused on the Master Plan process with the motion and 17 subsequent action in opposition to the request solely focused on the Master Plan 18 process currently underway. 19 20 Chair Doherty requested Mr. Willmus' opinion, from the Parks and Recreation 21 Commissions' perspective, on whether a location in the middle of the park versus on 22 the fringe of the park had or would have any bearing on they decision. 23 24 Mr. Willmus noted that the original proposal by Clearwire was for a relatively small 25 tower adjacent to the ice rink that would also serve as a lic~ttt standard for the rink with 26 a small equipment pad, which the Parks aril Recreation Commission initially 27 approved, as it was interpreted as riot being burdensome to move and would serve a 28 purpose for park users and not be aesthetically obtrusive. However, Mr. Willmus 29 noted that, based on City Code requi<'ements for larger structures, the request had 30 changed substantially, and the Commission acted on the proposal currently before 31 them. 32 33 Applicant Representative, Tony Vavoulis 34 Mr. Vavoulis addressed the original Clearwire tower request compared to this request 35 based orti fire applic~#'s atter~t to satisfy current City Zoning Code and preference 36 for multiple users. Mr. Vavoulis advised that the original tower proposed at 120-135' 37 would have satis'hed the applicant's needs. Mr. Vavoulis advised that the park 38 logtion was a fitnC#ion of the City's current zoning laws, reinforced by the 39 Comprehensive Plan guidance, and was the applicant's response to a search in this 40 designated area for coverage needs. Mr. Vavoulis noted that the applicant needed 41 the tower. height; that residential properties were excluded per their policy; and 42 available or potential roof-top mountings did not satisfy their coverage needs in this 43 area. Mr. Vavoulis advised that, while the tower location originally proposed by 44 Clearwire was closer to the parking lot, City staff recommended going back further 45 into the park for better screening, with this location a logical solution for expanding 46 wireless technology as another passive activity by park users, but also in obvious 47 conflict for adjoining property owners adhering to the "not in my backyard" concept. 48 49 Discussion among Commissioners, the applicant and staff included what if any leeway 50 the applicant had in locating this tower for sufficient coverage within the assigned grid 51 and dependent on engineering evaluations within the search area and based on 52 directional challenges, with this being the only identified location candidate in the 53 search area; consequences of not having a tower in this area being no wireless 54 coverage availability; applicability of the peninsula area of the park property extending 55 east along Weavers Road to front along Rice Street for a tower location and setback