2010-01-06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, January 06, 2010 Page 4 Mr. Willmus suggested that it would be prudent and timely for the Planning 148 Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and the City Council to review 149 current code and ask if these are the types of uses we want in our parks; do we 150 want to force those towers in parks; or force them to other potential city-held 151 properties with commercial use (i.e., fire house locations; city hall campus). 152 Chair Doherty sought to clarify if the Parks and Recreation Commission would 153 have supported approval in general if not for their Master Plan process. 154 Mr. Willmus, from his personal perspective, opined that they most likely would not 155 have approved it anyway; however, clarified that the Parks and Recreation 156 Commission’s motion and subsequent action in opposition to the request was 157 specifically based on the current Master Plan process. 158 Chair Doherty requested Mr. Willmus’ opinion, from the Parks and Recreation 159 Commissions’ perspective, or whether a location in the middle of the park versus 160 on the fringe of the park had or would have any bearing on their decision. 161 Mr. Willmus noted that the original proposal by Clearwire was for a relatively small 162 tower adjacent to the ice rink that would also serve as a light standard for the rink 163 with a small equipment pad, which the Parks and Recreation Commission initially 164 supported, as it was interpreted as being inexpensive to move and would serve a 165 purpose for park users and not be aesthetically obtrusive. However, Mr. Willmus 166 noted that, based on City Code requirements for larger structures, the request had 167 changed substantially, and the Commission acted on the present proposal. 168 Applicant Representative, Tony Vavoulis 169 Mr. Vavoulis addressed the original Clearwire tower request compared to this 170 request based on the applicant’s attempt to satisfy current City Zoning Code and 171 preference for multiple-provider facilities. Mr. Vavoulis advised that the original 172 tower proposed at 120-125’ would have satisfied the applicant’s needs. Mr. 173 Vavoulis advised that the park location was a function of the City’s current zoning 174 laws, reinforced by the Comprehensive Plan guidance, and was the applicant’s 175 response to a search in this designated area for coverage needs. Mr. Vavoulis 176 noted that the applicant needed the tower height; that residential properties were 177 excluded per City policy; and roof-top mountings would not satisfy their coverage 178 needs in this area. Mr. Vavoulis advised that, while the tower location originally 179 proposed by Clearwire was closer to the parking lot, City staff recommended 180 going back further into the park for better screening, with this location a logical 181 solution for expanding wireless technology as another passive activity by park 182 users, but perhaps in conflict with adjoining property owners’ aesthetic concerns. 183 Discussion among Commissioners, the applicant, and staff included what if any 184 leeway the applicant had in locating this tower for sufficient coverage within the 185 assigned grid and dependent on engineering evaluations within the search area 186 and based on directional challenges, with this being the only identified location 187 candidate in the search area; consequences of not having a tower in this area 188 being a gap in signal coverage; suitability of the peninsula area of the park 189 property extending east (south of Wewers Road) to front along Rice Street for a 190 tower location given setback restrictions; the new Walgreen’s drugstore location at 191 Rice and County Road C and congestion in that development based on setback 192 and parking requirements and constraints from a signal standpoint. 193 Public Comment 194 Mark Connolly, 240 West County Road C (northeast corner of park) 195 Mr. Connolly spoke in opposition to the request; opining that the Walgreen’s site 196 was preferable, with two single-family homes recently demolished and one site 197 available for sale and a potential option for tower location. Mr. Connolly advised 198 that he would prefer not to have the views from his home, currently surrounded by 199 trees, being impacted by installation of a tower. 200