CC_Minutes_2010_0111 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes -Wednesday, January 06, 2010 Page 5 1 Mr. D spoke in opposition to the request; opining that at his two-story home, 2 he already had the view of two (2) towers from his bedroom, and was not interested in 3 a third. Mr. D opined that the tower would do nothing to enhance the 4 neighborhood or the park system; and as a significant wireless user and familiarity 5 with and involvement in the industry, he experienced no problems in wireless 6 coverage at his home. Mr. asked that the Commission think this through and 7 listen to the residents. 8 9 Chair Doherty closed the Public Hearing at 7:58 p.m., with no one else a 10 or against. ppearing for 11 12 Commissioner Gisselquist noted that he did not support the original request the last 13 time it was presented, and was not in favor of it at this time either. Commissioner 14 Gisselquist noted the discussion and speculation about other potential locations, and 15 suggested that it was the onus of the applicant to find a viable solution. 16 Commissioner Gisselquist opined that a City park was not the location for a large 17 communication tower, and was moving in the wrong direction. While recognizing the 18 increasing need for and existing multiple towers as paR of today's landscape, 19 Commissioner Gisselquist expressed his appreca~tion for the discussion held at the 20 Parks and Recreation Commission level. Commissioner Gisselquist advised that, 21 from his limited role, he would vote "no" for this request; opining that City parks are 22 not a place for this type of commercial activity; it would be an eyesore; and was not a 23 good idea even when relocated to nestle among the trees. 24 25 Commissioner Wozniak advised tFiat, while he didn't like the proposed location of the 26 tower currently before the Commission, he was nvt as adamantly opposed to having a 27 tower on park property; however, he opinetf that,. given the sprawling nature of this 28 park, there were better locatior-s. Commissioner Wozniak concurred with 29 Commissioner Gisselquist's commer~s that the towers were part of today's landscape 30 and may eventually make observers Calloused; however, he advised that he preferred 31 to keep parks for growing trees and riot towers. Commissioner Wozniak advised that 32 he would supportt something located more on the fringe area of Acorn Park, such as 33 along Rice Street if it met code requirements; but could not support this request; and 34 supported the recomtner~dation of the Parks and Recreation Commission with the 35 uncertainty of the Master Plan process at this point and how this proposal may affect 36 the use of the ~k at a future date. 37 38 Commissioner Cook +ooncurred with Commissioner Wozniak's comments related and 39 opined chat he wasn'# convinced that this was the only site in that coverage area for 40 the tower location. Commissioner Cook advised that he would prefer to keep the 41 tower out of the park if it made sense to locate it in the Rice Street commercial area 42 as previously discussed. 43 44 Commissioner Best expressed appreciation for the scale mock-up of the proposed 45 120' tower to provide additional perspective. Commissioner Best opined that he didn't 46 like the way it appeared; and in light of the comments of the Parks and Recreation 47 Commission and status of the Master Plan process, opined that the proposed location 48 was not the best idea. Commissioner Best advised that he preferred the original 49 proposal and location, with the smaller tower and limited single-user function, as well 50 as it fitting into the designated space better. Commissioner Best spoke in opposition 51 to the request, opining that it would cause future Acorn Park development and 52 planning to evolve around the tower. 53 54 Chair Doherty expressed his various conflicts about installing a tower in Acorn Park or 55 any park; whether a Rice Street location would be viable; arguments consistent with