2010-01-06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, January 06, 2010 Page 6 Commissioner Wozniak advised that, while he didn’t like the proposed location of 254 the tower currently before the Commission, he was not as adamantly opposed to 255 having a tower on park property; he opined, however, that given the sprawling 256 nature of this park there were better locations. Commissioner Wozniak concurred 257 with Commissioner Gisselquist’s comments that the towers were part of today’s 258 landscape and may eventually make observers calloused; however, he advised 259 that he preferred to keep parks for “growing trees and not towers”. Commissioner 260 Wozniak advised that he would support something located more on the fringe 261 area of Acorn Park, such as along Rice Street if it met code requirements; but 262 could not support this request; and supported the recommendation of the Parks 263 and Recreation Commission with the uncertainty of the Master Plan process at 264 this point and how this proposal may affect the use of the park at a future date. 265 Commissioner Cook concurred with Commissioner Wozniak’s comments and 266 further opined that he wasn’t convinced that this was the only site in that coverage 267 area for the tower location. Commissioner Cook advised that he would prefer to 268 keep the tower out of the park if it made sense to locate it in the Rice Street 269 commercial area as previously discussed. 270 Commissioner Best expressed appreciation for the scale mock-up of the proposed 271 120’ tower to provide additional perspective. Commissioner Best opined that he 272 didn’t like the way it appeared; and in light of the comments of the Parks and 273 Recreation Commission and status of the Master Plan process, opined that the 274 proposed location was not the best idea. Commissioner Best advised that he 275 preferred the original proposal and location, with the smaller tower and limited 276 single-user function, as well as it fitting into the designated space better. 277 Commissioner Best spoke in opposition to the request, opining that it would cause 278 future Acorn Park development and planning to evolve around the tower. 279 Chair Doherty expressed his various conflicts about installing a tower in Acorn 280 Park or any park; whether a Rice Street location would be viable; arguments from 281 the public appearing to boil down to “not in my back yard;” and all the negatives in 282 proposing a park location without benefit to park users. 283 Chair Doherty questioned whether the City Council would consider some or all of 284 the revenue from this tower, if located on park land, be designated specifically for 285 park improvements to improve the park to offset possible negative impacts. Chair 286 Doherty suggested that, all indications are that even without the pending status of 287 the Master Plan process the current tower proposal would not be supported. Chair 288 Doherty noted the positives of the tower located on City property as an additional 289 revenue stream for the City; but questioned if directing towers to park land was a 290 direct conflict of the objectives of a park. Chair Doherty noted the rationale of the 291 City in wanting towers to be as unobtrusive as possible, and desire to have 292 multiple users on fewer towers. 293 City Planner Thomas Paschke noted that Clearwire needed about 120’ for their 294 needs; however, he noted that the City Code directs towers to municipal sites 295 (whether a fire station, city hall campus or parkland/open space); and that City 296 Code would require a Conditional Use application whether located in the park or 297 on the Walgreen’s site, and opined that the same issues and general land use 298 planning standards for analysis would be applied, with another location no less 299 obtrusive or reducing any of those impacts, and may be even more aesthetically 300 repugnant. Mr. Paschke reminded commissioners and the public that land use 301 analyses do not get into funding as it related to land use, and that such 302 consideration would be for a policy discussion and decision for the City Council, 303 not a function for this body in making land use decisions. 304 Mr. Paschke advised that co-location was in the overall best interest of the City, 305 consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, to avoid proliferation of towers around 306 the City; while recognizing that it made sense to be realistic where the 307