My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2010_0412
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2010
>
CC_Minutes_2010_0412
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/18/2010 1:47:50 PM
Creation date
5/18/2010 1:47:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
4/12/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, April 12, 2010 <br />Page 17 <br />as a funding source; and how to strike a balance between that revenue and tradi- <br />tional fees and/or property taxes. <br />Councilmember Roe recognized two aspects: that of cell phone towers them- <br />selves, and a broader discussion, both of which had been addressed during the <br />Parks Master Plan process. Councilmember Roe cited several examples, such as <br />how to include non-profit uses in parks, where items may be for sale, and how <br />and when those uses were appropriate or not. Councilmember Roe questioned the <br />criteria to consider such revenue benefits and control over their siting; and sug- <br />gested consideration of any policies from surrounding or metropolitan communi- <br />ties (i.e., City of Shoreview); and other types of commercial uses. Councilmemb- <br />er Roe further suggested reviewing setbacks from residential properties, and con- <br />sidering the proposed commercial use on the specific park, whether next to or in <br />an active use or natural area and their location accordingly. <br />Councilmember Pust concurred with Councilmember Roe's comments; and sug- <br />gested that this issue go through the City Council's advisory commissions for <br />their perspective, particularly the Parks and Recreation Commission for their con- <br />sideration of when a commercial use would be appropriate in a park; while recog- <br />nizing the infrastructure benefit to the community and meeting those needs. <br />Councilmember Pust opined that it was a vastly different concept to use a park <br />versus a rooftop at City Hall or other public building. <br />Mayor Klausing opined that it was not primarily a revenue consideration from his <br />perspective, but compliance by local government with federal law to permit siting <br />of these towers; and further opined that it made more sense to use public property <br />to allow local government greater control over those uses. Incidental to that, <br />Mayor Klausing noted that the visual burden would be placed on the community <br />no mater the location, therefore if the community has to shoulder that burden, <br />they should benefit financially from that aesthetic burden. <br />Councilmember Ihlan opined that the towers did not have to be sited in parks; and <br />expressed initial approval with the conditions and considerations provided by the <br />Parks and Recreation Commission, and spoke in support of a clear policy that <br />parks not be used for locating towers, according to those conditions, questioning <br />if a cell tower would ever provide a benefit to a park, or provide a benefit to park <br />users. <br />Mayor Klausing clarified that the purpose of tonight's discussion was for discus- <br />sion only, and not for drawing conclusions or drafting specific language, but pro- <br />viding direction on development of such a policy, and determining if additional <br />information was needed. <br />Councilmember Johnson opined that locating a cell tower next to a park was just <br />as obnoxious as locating it in the park (Acorn Park); and used the example of the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.