pm_110409 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, November 04, 2009 Page 14 informing the public of the actual proposal and tower height being considered. Mr. Paschke advised that, once staff and the applicant had worked through the issues, the public could then be re-noticed, noting that there was no concern of staff in meeting the land use review timeframe, and still allowing staff to re-notice the public sufficiently before next month’s Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Paschke opined that he would prefer to allow staff time to revise the request, address competing interests, and provide a definitive plan prior to it being heard at the City Council level. Commissioners concurred that this would be the best process. Chair Doherty asked that the applicant provide schematics with their resubmission; and also requested other Commissioners’ comments with staff at tonight’s meeting. Commissioner Gisselquist spoke in opposition to this proposal; opining that if it was built, it should be of sufficient height for multiple users, rather than needing additional towers. Commissioner Gisselquist acknowledged that it was a “dead zone;” but further noted that the timing of the request when the Parks & Recreation Commission was in the midst of their long-range planning process, was unfortunate. Commissioner Gisselquist noted that, while the Comprehensive Plan didn’t explicitly oppose such a use, it didn’t address parks as a good location for the use either. Commissioner Gisselquist advised that he would probably still vote “nay” at a future date, based on the proposed location in a park. Commissioner Wozniak advised that he was unsure if he could support constructing a tower in a park, opining that it was not the best use of a park, even while understanding the need for the towers. Commissioner Wozniak noted that the City only had so much park space available, and he was reluctant to turn it over to such a utilitarian use; and reluctant to consider any proposal without some more definitive rendering of what it would look like, expressing surprise that it wasn’t included as part of tonight’s presentation. Commissioner Wozniak expressed further concern in the lack of understanding and accuracy provided to the public on the proposal; and opined that they would, at a minimum, need to be re-noticed based on the additional height of the tower being considered, if the proposal returned to the Commission in a modified form. Commissioner Wozniak suggested that a different location would be preferable in the area, but not in the park; and questioned the City’s rationale in locating a tower within a public park. Commissioner Wozniak expressed interest in providing the Parks & Recreation Commission more time to consider location options and how this may fit into the Master Plan process for Acorn Park. Commissioner Wozniak supported tabling the request, re-noticing the public of any future proposal brought forward, which would also need to include a rendering of the proposed tower at a specific location; and allowing for more feedback from the Parks & Recreation Commission on how they view the proposal. Commissioner Best advised that he support locating a tower in the park at a 150’ height for collocation purposes; however, expressed interest in looking at alternative locations. Commissioner Best further noted that, since the public was noticed for a 100’ tower, as originally proposed for a single user, he would like to have them re-noticed to allow their review and comment on a more refined proposal. Chair Doherty questioned the need for an open house to be held by the applicant, allowing residents more opportunity to comment on a specific proposal; and encouraged the applicant to do so, even though not required by the City.