pm_110409 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, November 04, 2009 Page 9 spring/summer of 2010; and whether there is any interest of other providers to co-locate at a tower in Acorn Park. Mr. Heiser advised that every provider in Roseville and in the metropolitan area suffered from similar “dead zones”. Mr. Heiser advised that another cellular provider had also questioned the availability of City property between Western Avenue and Rice Street in the vicinity of County Road C; and reviewed other limited towers available in that area, with no additional towers to the north until reaching the City of Shoreview. Mr. Heiser noted that this would provide evidence of the problem area, while the needs differed among service providers. Mr. Heiser advised that, if the tower location was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and ultimately approved by the City Council, staff could contact their leasing agents to gauge their interest in installing equipment at that location. However, Mr. Heiser noted that it would take time to secure those agreements, even though there was certainly a need. Further discussion between staff and Commissioners included location of AT&T towers currently in the community (freestanding towers at Chandler Vault and Highway 88 at Snelling Avenue); amount of space actually required for ground equipment based on the number of providers and their specific equipment, with Clearwire only needing a 10’ x 10’ space, based on the size of their equipment that is smaller than a refrigerator, but more space would be required to accommodate screening of equipment and additional providers’ equipment. Mr. Heiser advised that the ground equipment area at the City Hall location is proposed to be relatively large because it would be constructed of masonry and would not be easily enlarged. Applicant Representative, Tony Vavoulis At the request of Chair Doherty, Mr. Vavoulis addressed how Clearwire mitigated the appearance of their towers within park sites versus industrial or commercial sites. Mr. Vavoulis noted that this was Clearwire’s rationale in proposing the shorter, single-user monopole rather than a multi-user pole. However, Mr. Vavoulis noted that the City’s Zoning Code was not conducive to this consideration, even though guiding towers to city-owned property, similar to other communities, to prevent the towers from being erected in residential yards and to allow cities to manage the telecommunication business in their community. Mr. Vavoulis advised that the original intent of Clearwire was to replace the existing light standard, while co-locating the lights on the monopole. Mr. Vavoulis noted that the existing light standard could not be used by Clearwire, as it was not a very robust pole. Mr. Vavoulis compared typical cellular equipment and panels on poles to that of Clearwire, requiring less mounting space. Mr. Vavoulis noted that Clearwire’s equipment boxes were not very visible; and advised that the existing transformer box in the park near the tennis courts (northeast corner) is likely overlooked by most park users. Mr. Vavoulis advised that shorter poles may be less visible but have a shorter signal range; and that the monopole, as well as the panels themselves, could be painted any color desired to better blend in with the park surroundings. Public Comment Mr. Paschke noted for the record that, in addition to four (4) phone comments received by staff voicing opposition, staff also received four (4) e-mail comments: they were from Al Fabian, Pam Fabian, and Katie Fabian, from the same address at 375 Brooks Avenue West; and Ed Kelly of 355 Brooks Avenue West; with each respectively speaking in opposition to locating a tower at Acorn Park.