pm_110409 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, November 04, 2009 Page 10 Mark Connolly, 240 West County Road C (corner of park), resident since 1975 Mr. Connolly expressed his appreciation of Acorn Park and his tremendous enjoyment of it. Mr. Connolly advised that he had originally thought the Parks & Recreation Commission’s concern was just one of aesthetics; however, now he was aware of other numerous questions. Mr. Connolly opined that Acorn Park had gone through a lot of transformations; and that it appeared more were pending. Mr. Connolly questioned, if the tower were installed, whether it would impact future improvements, and if the installation made sense. Mr. Connolly questioned the additional height to accommodate multiple users, making it more of an eyesore. Mr. Connolly referenced the staff report several times with respect to perceived impacts related to location and aesthetics, with disc golf played in that area, in addition to hockey rink activities. Mr. Connolly expressed concern with impacts to the huge Oak trees in the park and proposed location of the tower in a large, clear area of the park. Mr. Connolly questioned the value of increased Internet coverage versus impacts to the park used by thousand throughout the year. Mr. Connolly questioned if this was the best use of a park versus locating the tower in an industrial area along a highway, opining that it was totally out of place in a park. Mr. Connolly further referenced the staff report related to comments on the welcome the additional wireless Internet service; however, he suggested that there was no data to support such rationale. Mr. Connolly opined that this is not an improvement to the park, and would probably reduce surrounding property values, an undesirable situation especially in a recession with values already reduced. Mark Gregory, 345 Transit Avenue Mr. Gregory reviewed his credentials as a CFO for a company owning multiple Arby’s franchises in numerous states, and the criteria used in reviewing applications for variances to allow greater height for their pylon signs; as well as impacts by other franchise signs blocking their signs. Mr. Gregory advised that, when his firm repeatedly sought a 5-10’ variance, most cities required submission of a rendering to all residents in the neighborhood to determine how the sign would affect them. Mr. Gregory opined that this 150’ pole was proposed in a residential neighborhood, not a commercial area, even though other more suitable locations were available in commercial areas, or in Little Canada on the other side of Rice Street. Mr. Gregory noted the misinformation provided in the public post card notices; and how residents were unaware of the actual proposed tower height and its potential impacts. Mr. Gregory encouraged the City to insist upon a rendering for the actual tower height; and a broader notice area for those who will also be visually impacted, especially with the additional tower height being recommended. Blanche Jensen, 245 West County Road C (across from park) Ms. Jensen, as a frequent Acorn Park user, opined that the proposed pole was ugly, and the area for the ground equipment was too large and the entire request inappropriate. Diane Farrell, 2671 Marion Street Ms. Farrell agreed with her neighbors and those having previously spoken to this issue; opining that the tower would be an eyesore in a park where children played; and questioned safety issues with children climbing upon the pole and/or ground equipment. Richard Schaefer, 325 Brooks Avenue W (back yard abuts Acorn Park) Mr. Schaefer concurred with previous comments; and the concerns expressed from the reluctant agreement of the Parks & Recreation Commission, with the Master Planning in process. Mr. Schaefer encouraged waiting until that study had been completed before considering a request such as this. Mr. Schaefer opined that the visuals provided of the proposed tower and existing light pole served as