Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Commissioner Van Scoy asked if there are any alternatives that have been looked at outside of <br />the park in this area that would be eligible for a tower. <br /> <br />Associate Planner DaInes replied about 1 ~ years ago they started to fIrst look at the alternatives <br />for both towers; the one that would be relocated and this circle of gap in coverage. They looked <br />at a map and went over the possible scenarios. There may be other opportunities if a variance to <br />the 10 required acres would be considered, but because the City requires ten acres and prefers the <br />property to be city-owned, Alpine Park was the most obvious location. <br /> <br />Commissioner VanScoy asked if it would be a possibility to work with. Waste Management to <br />locate the tower across the fence and get it out of the park but in the same general area. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski explained Waste Management no longer controls the landfill; it is <br />contr.olled by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and they are very restrictive with <br />what happens there. He is certain MPCA would not want the tower located anywhere near where <br />the active fill is. <br /> <br />Commissioner Van Scoy noted the Waste Management site would be more of an industrial use. <br />He asked if it is a viable option as an alternative location. <br /> <br />Civil Engineer II Linton indicated the :MPCA will not allow anything to be located on the slope <br />of the landfIll. Since the whole north slope of the landfIll comes up to the fence this would not <br />be an option. <br /> <br />Mr. Fountain asked if elevation is a primary function of service. <br /> <br />Mr. Edwards replied elevation is helpful, but this is a hilly area. The ten acre requirement is <br />what precludes them in the location they are looking at. <br /> <br />Mr. Fountain stated the City Council has within its powers the ability to grant variances. He <br />cannot reasonably understand why a tower of this size is going to require ten acres. Higher <br />elevation is available in the industrial park. The reasons he has presented are reasonable enough <br />to deny this request and to request a serious study of a location in the industrial park. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Cleveland, seconded by Commissioner Van Scoy, to close the public <br />hearing. <br /> <br />Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Nixt, Commissioners Cleveland, Van Scoy, Brauer, <br />Hunt, Levine, and Trites Rolle. V oring No: None. Absent: None. <br /> <br />The public hearing was closed at 7:32 p.m. <br /> <br />Commission Business <br /> <br />Planning Commission/ June 7, 2007 <br />Page 5 of 31 <br /> <br />P5 <br />