pm_110409 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, November 04, 2009 Page 11 optical illusions, even presenting different sized photos; and should be reviewed in light of the actual neighborhood and how it will appear on the horizon, based on additional and more accurate and sophisticated renderings. Mr. Schaefer further opined that, if you don’t live in the neighborhood, you may not care; however, it was in their back yard and asked that the Planning Commission take that into consideration. Gary Wolf, 203 Wewers Road Mr. Wolf referenced the staff report as it related to a review of the Conditional Use criteria and impacts, and the opinion that the impacts were only aesthetic and therefore minimal; and the comment that the use was compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and not explicitly opposed as a use. Mr. Wolf opined that there was a huge impact to the park; and further opined that in his cursory Internet research of potential negative impacts from emissions, asked that further review of potential impacts to public health and safety be done, even though the FCC’s ruling was that towers couldn’t be prohibited based on potential health concerns, of which there was not sufficient evidence. Mike Lamatsch, 360 Oakcrest Lane (off west side of Acorn Park) Mr. Lamatsch concurred with previous comments; opining that this request should be rejected based on the multitude of flaws in the staff report and in the public notice provided. Mr. Lamatsch noted staff comments in Section 7.2e of their report related to market values of contiguous properties; and questioned their qualifications in that decision-making process, suggesting that a professional opinion of a realtor or appraiser needed to be heard, rather than staff in their desire for approval of the request. While appreciating the potential revenue in renting tower space in keeping taxes down, Mr. Lamatsch preferred not to experience something similar to the Shoreview towers, and was not interested in a 150’ tower in his back yard unless it was invisible. Robert (Bob) Pankonin, 2508 Matilda Street – south side of Acorn Park Mr. Pankonin, while having heard benefits to Clearwire and to the City, expressed interest in the hearing the specific benefits to the community in having the tower located in Acorn Park beyond additional wireless benefits at less of a cost and providing more competition but few benefits. Mr. Pankonin noted the adversarial comments from users of the park; and opined that it was a beautiful park and part of Roseville. Mr. Pankonin, while recognizing that the federal government didn’t allow approval or denial based on health issues, opined that there was electrical discharge and a potential negative impact from EMF’s, and asked that Clearwire address that. Mr. Pankonin further wondered, if there was to be a financial benefit to the City and its taxpayers, what that financial benefit would be and what the money would be used for. Mr. Pankonin expressed support of his fellow neighbors’ comments; and questioned if this was an appropriate use for a neighborhood park used by so many. Mr. Pankonin admitted that he was unable to get cellular phone service in that area. Sarah Heikkila Ms. Heikkila, having small children who frequently used the park, questioned if the proposed location was the best one, taking up space in such a wide open area. Ms. Heikkila opined that she thought there were other areas in the park that were better secluded and would serve as better sites. However, Ms. Heikkila advocated for the need for additional service in that area. Gerald LaMay, 350 West County Road C Mr. LaMay noted that the Acorn Park parking area abutted his back yard; and questioned whether anyone would be told of the impacts of the tower, since information was dependent on that received from the providers. Mr. LaMay suggested that the tower be located on a hill so less height was required. Mr.