CC_Minutes_2010_0111 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes -Wednesday, January 06, 2010 Page 6 1 "not in my back yard;" and all the negatives in proposing a park location without 2 benefit to park users. 3 4 Chair Doherty questioned whether the City Council would consider some or all of the 5 revenue from this tower, if located on park land, be designated specifically for park 6 improvements to improve the park to offset possible negative impacts. Chair Doherty 7 suggested that, all indications are that even without the pending status of the Master 8 Plan process the current tower proposal would not be supported. Chair Doherty noted 9 the positives of the tower located on City property as an additional revenue stream for 10 the City; but questioned if directing towers to park land was a direct conflict of the 1 1 objectives of a park. Chair Doherty noted the rationale of the City in wanting towers to 12 be as unobtrusive as possible, and desire to have multiple users on #ewer towers. 13 14 City Planner Thomas Paschke noted that Clearwire needed about i2t)' for their 15 needs; however, he noted that the City Code is the conflict in directing towers to 16 municipal sites (whether a fire station, city hall campus of parkland/open spage); and 17 that City Code would require a Conditional Use application whether located in the park 18 or on the Walgreen's site, and opined that the same issues and general land use 19 planning standards for analysis would be applied, with another location no less 20 obtrusive or reducing any of those impacts, 2nd may be even more aesthetically 21 repugnant. Mr. Paschke reminded commissioners and the public that land use 22 analyses do not get into funding as it related to land use, and that such consideration 23 would be for a policy discussion and decision for the City Council, not a function for 24 this body in making land use decisions. 25 26 Mr. Paschke advised that co-location was in the overall best interest of the City, 27 consistent with the Comprehensive flan, to avoid a plethora of towers throughout the 28 City; while recognizing that it made sense to be realistic where the 29 telecommunications industry and techhnology is going in the future. Mr. Paschke 30 opined that it would be short-sighted of the City to facilitate a single user on one 31 tower. 32 33 Chair Doherty, in his effort to reflect to the City Council the multiple conflicts inherent 34 in this proposal, advised ihat tie would vote in opposition to the majority, no matter 35 which way tney voted, to bring the matter to further discussion by the City's policy- 36 making body. Chair Doherty requested that the minutes reflect his conflict: that 37 adjacent neighbors were opposed to the tower, but if following that line of reasoning 38 as presented, there would never be another tower installed in Roseville. However, 39 Chair Doherty noted that the Comprehensive Plan called for the City to be 40 technologically up-to-date and have multiple users on towers. 41 42 Commissioner Gisselquist opined that while he wouldn't anticipate that the proposed 43 commercial site (Walgreen's) would be anon-controversial site either, he would be 44 less apt to actually observe the tower on a property used for commercial use when 45 that is his purpose when going to that destination, while when he goes to Acorn Park it 46 is strictly for recreation and not to engage in commercial activities. Commissioner 47 Gisselquist advised that he was inclined to support a tower on commercial property 48 when the opportunity was available; however, he would say "no" to commercial uses 49 in a park. 50 51 Chair Doherty noted that the tower would be visible to adjacent property owners if 52 located on a commercial property as well. 53 54 Commissioner Best advised that he was torn between the need for 55 telecommunications technology, but supported multiple users on each tower;