CC_Minutes_2010_0412 - Laserfiche WebLink

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, April 12, 2010 Page 17 as a funding source; and how to strike a balance between that revenue and tradi- tional fees and/or property taxes. Councilmember Roe recognized two aspects: that of cell phone towers them- selves, and a broader discussion, both of which had been addressed during the Parks Master Plan process. Councilmember Roe cited several examples, such as how to include non-profit uses in parks, where items may be for sale, and how and when those uses were appropriate or not. Councilmember Roe questioned the criteria to consider such revenue benefits and control over their siting; and sug- gested consideration of any policies from surrounding or metropolitan communi- ties (i.e., City of Shoreview); and other types of commercial uses. Councilmemb- er Roe further suggested reviewing setbacks from residential properties, and con- sidering the proposed commercial use on the specific park, whether next to or in an active use or natural area and their location accordingly. Councilmember Pust concurred with Councilmember Roe's comments; and sug- gested that this issue go through the City Council's advisory commissions for their perspective, particularly the Parks and Recreation Commission for their con- sideration of when a commercial use would be appropriate in a park; while recog- nizing the infrastructure benefit to the community and meeting those needs. Councilmember Pust opined that it was a vastly different concept to use a park versus a rooftop at City Hall or other public building. Mayor Klausing opined that it was not primarily a revenue consideration from his perspective, but compliance by local government with federal law to permit siting of these towers; and further opined that it made more sense to use public property to allow local government greater control over those uses. Incidental to that, Mayor Klausing noted that the visual burden would be placed on the community no mater the location, therefore if the community has to shoulder that burden, they should benefit financially from that aesthetic burden. Councilmember Ihlan opined that the towers did not have to be sited in parks; and expressed initial approval with the conditions and considerations provided by the Parks and Recreation Commission, and spoke in support of a clear policy that parks not be used for locating towers, according to those conditions, questioning if a cell tower would ever provide a benefit to a park, or provide a benefit to park users. Mayor Klausing clarified that the purpose of tonight's discussion was for discus- sion only, and not for drawing conclusions or drafting specific language, but pro- viding direction on development of such a policy, and determining if additional information was needed. Councilmember Johnson opined that locating a cell tower next to a park was just as obnoxious as locating it in the park (Acorn Park); and used the example of the