Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ROSEVILLE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION <br />MINUTES OF MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2010 <br />ROSEVILLE CITY HALL ~ 6:30PM <br /> <br />PRESENT: <br /> Etten, D.Holt, M.Holt, Jacobson, Brodt Lenz, Pederson, Stark, Willmus <br />ABSENT: <br /> Hiber, Ristow <br />STAFF: <br /> Brokke, Anfang <br /> <br /> INTRODUCTIONS/ROLL CALL/PUBLIC COMMENT <br />1. <br />No Public Comment <br /> <br /> APPROVAL OF MINUTES – JANUARY 5, 2010 MEETING <br />2. <br />Commission Recommendation:. <br /> Minutes for the January 5, 2010 meeting were approved unanimously <br /> <br /> COMMUNICATIONS TOWER (CLEARWIRE PROPOSAL) at ACORN PARK <br />3. <br />Willmus reviewed the current status and actions in regards to the Clearwire Proposal at Acorn Park. <br />th <br /> <br />Following the January 25 Council meeting the Clearwire Proposal was sent back to the Parks and <br /> <br />Recreation Commission for further discussion and recommendation. <br />Commission discussion followed; <br /> <br />Sarah Brodt Lenz shared photos for a tower designed to look like a tree so as not to be as <br />conspicuous. <br /> <br />Jason Etten questioned whether we want to open up public land to private use. <br /> <br />Dave Holt inquired into where the tower would go if it wasn’t placed in a park. Commissioners <br />agreed that the answer to that question is beyond the scope of the Commission. <br /> <br />Ultimate question for the Commission is; do we as a body think this is an appropriate use of the <br />park? <br /> <br />Jim Stark voiced his opinion that the direction and policy for the overall use of a park is a Master <br />Plan issue. <br /> <br />Dave Holt reminded the Commission that wireless capabilities has been previously discussed with <br />the Master Plan Citizen Advisory Team and Commission. <br /> <br />Mary Holt recognized that the proposal designates a large area in the park and to make a decision on <br />this without consideration to the Master Plan process is not appropriate. <br /> <br />Sarah Brodt Lenz recommended that any recommendation or policy should address “tall structures” <br />and surrounding support areas (the overall footprint), rather than specific use structures and discuss <br />the proposal from a design standard approach. <br />The Commission discussion was redirected by the question; does the Commission feel permanent <br />commercial uses in a park are appropriate? <br /> <br />Mary Holt mentioned that she would feel more positive toward a decision to authorize commercial <br />use of a park if the revenues generated were returned to the parks and recreation system. <br /> <br />Jim Stark cautioned that this action might lead to selling a part of the park to maintain infrastructure. <br /> <br />Dave Holt encouraged Commissioners to look at potential future uses of the park and how <br />technology fits into those uses. <br /> <br />Jason Etten asked about the usefulness of technology if it is not available wide-spread. <br />Commissioners recognized that the Co-Locate Policy is what most everyone is struggling with and <br />questioned whether they are saying yes to one tower in one park or authorizing multiple towers in parks <br />throughout the City. <br /> <br />Commissioners talked about whether a decision on this proposal sets precedence for future <br />considerations that haven’t been planned for. <br />Commissioners suggested a moratorium on significant park use issues until the Master Plan process is <br />completed. If we value the process, there needs to be consideration for it. <br /> <br />Commissioners asked about the possibility of seeing some design standards, which other Cities have <br />them, what do they look like, especially in regards to those that disguise the look of a structure. <br /> <br /> <br />