2010-01-06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, January 06, 2010 Page 5 Mr. Connolly questioned whether a tower was visually appealing, would maintain 201 adjacent residential property values, or would attract residents to Acorn Park; and 202 opined if the equipment isn’t fenced, it will become a graffiti magnate. Mr. 203 Connolly opined that Lady Slipper Park on South Owasso is swampy, with few 204 adjacent residential homes, and would serve as a better location for a tower. Mr. 205 Connolly further opined that a detailed coverage map needed to be made 206 available to the public showing gaps and indicating where actual needs existed. 207 Mr. Connolly referenced the staff report, Sections 7.3 c) and d) and questioned if 208 the information was staff’s interpretation or factual in nature as it related to 209 aesthetics, value of wireless internet service as a residential amenity, and affects 210 on property values; and requested supporting data for these assumptions. 211 Mr. Connolly further referenced some “secondhand information” provided by a 212 neighbor related to the original donation of Acorn Park to the City, perhaps by the 213 Applebaum family and whether covenants restricted the use of that park property. 214 Richard Schaefer, 325 Brooks Avenue (south side of park) 215 Mr. Schaefer spoke in opposition to the request, opining that it would be similar to 216 installing a wind turbine in Acorn Park. Mr. Schaefer further opined that the 217 Walgreen’s site would be more appropriate for a tower location; that there was no 218 reason to lose green space within Acorn Park for this purpose; and questioned 219 why the Planning Commission was even considering this as a possibility. Mr. 220 Schaefer opined that, no matter the potential revenue, the residential tax burden 221 would not be reduced, nor would homeowners adjacent to the park realize any of 222 the revenue, but it would “disappear” into the City’s General Fund. Mr. Schaefer 223 advised that he was opposed to locating a tower in Acorn Park, or any other park. 224 Bob Pankonin, 2508 Matilda Street (south side of park) 225 Mr. Pankonin suggested that there was lots of information that the public had not 226 been made privy to, and asked individual Commissioners why they would support 227 this request; and why it was important for the community to have this tower 228 located in the middle of Acorn Park. 229 Art Dickson, 2573 Western Avenue 230 Mr. Dickson spoke in support of the request; opining that the community needed 231 to support additional communications systems; and even though he would be able 232 to see if from his home, he was not opposed to it. 233 Lee Droddy, 330 W Brooks Avenue 234 Mr. Droddy spoke in opposition to the request; opining that at his two-story home, 235 he already had the view of two towers from his bedroom, and was not interested 236 in a third. Mr. Droddy opined that the tower would do nothing to enhance the 237 neighborhood or the park system; he was satisfied with using a wireless router for 238 his home Internet service. Mr. Droddy asked that the Commission think this 239 through and listen to the residents. 240 With no one else speaking, Chair Doherty closed the Public Hearing at 7:58 p.m. 241 Commissioner Gisselquist noted that he did not support the original request the 242 last time it was presented, and was not in favor the current proposal either. 243 Commissioner Gisselquist noted the discussion and speculation about other 244 potential locations, and suggested that it was the onus of the applicant to find a 245 viable solution. Commissioner Gisselquist opined that a City park was not the 246 location for a large communication tower, and was moving in the wrong direction. 247 While recognizing the increasing need for and existing multiple towers as part of 248 today’s landscape, Commissioner Gisselquist expressed his appreciation for the 249 discussion held at the Parks and Recreation Commission level. Commissioner 250 Gisselquist advised that he would vote against this request, opining that City 251 parks are not a place for this type of commercial activity; it would be an eyesore; 252 and was not a good idea even when relocated to nestle among the trees. 253