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 13 <br />Chair Doherty spoke in support of the proposal, opining that fortunately or <br />unfortunately, increased technology had become a part of our landscape; and <br />questioned how many people would be able to identify the location of the tower in <br />Reservoir Woods. Chair Doherty noted that some may say that the towers are <br />everywhere, and that they shouldn’t be, and he accepted their opinion; but <br />opined that it was part of our society. Chair Doherty noted the provisions in City <br />Code that multiple users be located on one tower, opining that it made sense to <br />him; however, noted that this required the towers to be taller and space for <br />ground equipment to be larger. Chair Doherty opined that the weight of the <br />evidence presented led him to support staff’s recommendation. <br />Commissioner Boerigter opined that this was a complicated matter, made more <br />so because of the process to-date, and lack of clarity in what Clearwire was <br />seeking, and what the City was recommending; in addition to the apparent <br />discrepancies in the materials provided to the public and Commissioners. <br />Commissioner Boerigter concurred with the majority of Chair Doherty’s <br />comments related to cell towers being a part of today’s world, and agreed with <br />City Code in encouraging multiple users on one site to reduce multiple towers. <br />Commissioner Boerigter advised that his issue with this proposal was the <br />proposed location in Acorn Park; and suggested that, if the request moved <br />forward, that location be reconsidered. Commissioner Boerigter opined that <br />through the process from Clearwire’s original request based on convenience to <br />put a small tower at that location, to that of the City’s suggestion for a taller and <br />better tower to accommodate multiple users, and without clear input from the <br />Parks & Recreation Commission’s in the preliminary stages for a location that <br />may be better than that proposed adjacent to the hockey rink, the consideration <br />of another possible location had been lost in the shuffle. Commissioner Boerigter <br />expressed confidence that a better location in the park existed, and suggested <br />that, if the request was approved by the Planning Commission, prior to the City <br />Council’s consideration, everyone look for that location to minimize visual and <br />footprint impacts for users at Acorn Park. Commissioner Boerigter suggested that <br />a better location for the ground structure may be found other than next to the <br />hockey rink; and that the applicant should provide a schematic to better <br />exemplify that, allowing Parks & Recreation Director Brokke to find a more <br />suitable location rather than right in the middle of the park. Commissioner <br />Boerigter opined that the tower should be located in Acorn Park, with the <br />additional height to accommodate additional users and clear dead spots for cell <br />phone users; and again expressed confidence that another spot could be less <br />intrusive to the park, that may necessitate changing conditions and allowing staff <br />more latitude between now and the City Council meeting to find that appropriate <br />spot. <br />Chair Doherty thanked Commissioner Boerigter for doing a better job expressing <br />his thoughts as well. <br />Commissioner Cook spoke in support of the idea; but not as presented; opining <br />that the Commission needed to see the exact location, the exact height, and in <br />this case, a visual image of the tower. Commissioner Cook expressed concern in <br />approving the request as currently presented; and advised that he would not <br />support the presentation currently before the Commission; while being amenable <br />to it being modified to send on, if possible from the bench. However, <br />Commissioner Cook spoke in support of sending the request back to the <br />applicant for resubmission. <br />Mr. Paschke suggested that the Commission could table the requests to allow <br />staff to address the issues raised at tonight’s meeting. Mr. Paschke expressed <br />confidence that staff could make revisions administratively, given the direction <br />received from the public, the Parks & Recreation Commission, and the Planning <br />Commission; however, he did express his concern in properly and accurately <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.