My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_110409
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
200x
>
2009
>
pm_110409
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/1/2010 10:47:05 AM
Creation date
3/1/2010 10:47:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
11/4/2009
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, November 04, 2009 <br />Page 12 <br />LaMay opined that everything should be reviewed before any approval by the <br />Planning Commission or City Council. <br />Chair Doherty thanked everyone for their comments and closed the Public <br />Hearing at 8:43 p.m. <br />Applicant Representative, Tony Vavoulis, responding to the EMF issue <br />Mr. Vavoulis specifically addressed health impacts and controls on frequencies <br />by explaining that there were frequencies for all communication, whether cellular <br />or Internet, and that each was controlled by the FCC in a fairly narrow band to <br />avoid conflicts. Mr. Vavoulis advised that Clearwire was well within federal <br />guidelines, and was at the lower end of the frequencies. Mr. Vavoulis noted that <br />cellular frequencies were lower than that of a microwave in a home; and wireless <br />Internet was far less than that frequency. <br />Commissioner Wozniak questioned if Clearwire had considered any other <br />locations in Acorn Park other than the one proposed. <br />Mr. Vavoulis advised that they had initially looked at a spot to the southwest of <br />the proposed location on a knoll surrounded by trees, and including the remnants <br />of an old concrete pad tucked into the trees. However, Mr. Vavoulis advised that <br />the decision came down to a trade-off for eliminating the existing light pole and <br />replacing it with a monopole for Clearwire and accommodating the lighting for the <br />hockey rink. Mr. Vavoulis advised that Clearwire had some flexibility in their <br />location, and that plans had not been developed beyond this point, pending <br />approval; and in further discussion with staff before this meeting, was seeking <br />this input from the City and public to ensure that they were not investing design <br />time in the wrong spot. Mr. Vavoulis advised that the proposed site would work <br />for them, and that elevations could be kept within the context of the park, with <br />maintenance crews monitoring equipment as needed - likely on a monthly or <br />quarterly basis. Mr. Vavoulis concurred that this was a very nice park; and <br />expressed appreciation for citizen comments. Mr. Vavoulis advised that, if the <br />ground elevation increased, the tower height could be reduced, at least from the <br />perspective of Clearwire and their needs, as long as the signal frequency could <br />clear the trees. <br />Commissioner Wozniak sought clarification if this proposal required an open <br />house. <br />Mr. Paschke advised that a Conditional Use did not require an open house; and <br />had not been suggested by staff, since staff did not make decisions about open <br />houses based on specific uses, but instead adhered to the City Code, which had <br />been recently modified as it related to those developments requiring open <br />houses. <br />Commissioner Gisselquist questioned if this was the only park with a tower. <br />Mr. Paschke advised that there was a larger tower facility located in Reservoir <br />Woods. <br />Chair Doherty noted that there were many conflicts associated with this <br />proposals, including a smaller, single-user tower versus a taller, multi-user tower; <br />where the best location would be, whether as proposed, or on a hill; existing <br />cellular service and improvements that may be available with construction of this <br />tower and benefits to residents on the south side of the park; the need to <br />coordinate the tower location with the Parks & Recreation Commission. Chair <br />Doherty expressed his disappointment that he had overlooked the information in <br />the staff report noting the Parks & Recreation Commission’s consideration of this <br />issue at their recent meeting. Further issues related to the proposal, and <br />addressed by Chair Doherty, included economic benefits to City and whether any <br />location in Acorn Park would be acceptable to the neighborhood. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.