06-21 PC Minutes 5-16-06
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
4. Brick used along the lower portion of the sign must be the same material as that used ion
the existing building.
5. The LED display shall be limited to the hours between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m..
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
T-MOBILE: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 9 FOOT FENCE
ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6434 MURRAY HILL ROAD, (WATER TOWER SITE),
PLANNING CASE 06-21.
Public Present:
Name Address
th
Steve Edwards 501 50 Street West, Minneapolis
Gil Kreidberg 6444 Murray Hill Road
Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: Anyone have any questions for staff?
Keefe: Just a quick question on security and access. You know in terms of keeping kids out.
It’s next to a junior high. What is the fencing material? That it’s going to be made out of.
Al-Jaff: It is wood.
Keefe: Okay, and then T-Mobile would maintain a lock on the access to it, is that how it works?
Al-Jaff: Well the city has a gate on this site so, but that will only prevent vehicular traffic. Kids
do use that area. There is traffic used to the area, and the proposed fence will provide the added
security.
Keefe: Any concerns from a security perspective in relation to kids that the city has? Would
have. Nothing that you can think of.
Aanenson: …to the City Council to validate that when they approve that.
Keefe: Okay.
Larson: Has that got a cover on the top? I’m trying to decipher the drawings here. I’m sorry, is
there like a roof on this or is it just a fence all the way around?
Aanenson: No, it’s a fence all the way around.
42
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
Larson: Okay. It’s really hard for me because this is microscopic and I refuse to get glasses.
How large is this structure? Width and depth.
Al-Jaff: It is 8 feet by 15 feet.
Larson: Okay. That’s all I have.
Al-Jaff: I apologize. It is 15 by 20.
Larson: 15 by 20?
Al-Jaff: Yes.
Larson: See, you couldn’t see it either.
Al-Jaff: Yes, my glasses are on the table.
Larson: Okay. No further questions.
McDonald: Kurt.
Papke: This is a big fence and it’s going to be pretty visible. Is it going to be stained or anything
like that? And if so, who maintains that?
Al-Jaff: They will be maintained by T-Mobile. I was out on the site today and it is fairly
screened. You won’t be able to see it. You’ve got the existing fences in this area. The base of
the.
Papke: If you can’t see the fence, then why would we bother to put it in there?
Gil Kreidberg: I’ll tell you why if you want to know. I’m the one who lives right next to it. It
will be 4 feet off my property and sits 3 feet over my fence. And it’s the only way…reasonable
deal because otherwise it’s an obstruction and a clear negative to the value of my property to
have a ventilating system. Just give it a straight line shot to my house…
Aanenson: Which is just one property owner.
Papke: Okay, so it is visible. It will be visible by somebody. So we do care about the
appearance is kind of where I’m going with this. So I assume it’s going to be stained. It’s not
going to be just bare wood? It will have to be maintained and that will be maintained by T-
Mobile?
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Papke: Okay.
43
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
McDonald: Okay. Is this fence going to go all the way around the perimeter fence? You keep
talking about fences and gates.
Al-Jaff: There is a fence that goes around the entire property itself. The entire city property.
The water tower property. And then there will be a second fence, which is what the conditional
use permit is for that will go around this equipment. And this fence that we’re getting the
conditional use permit for is 15 feet by 20 feet.
McDonald: Okay, so we’re only talking about a fence around their equipment? Not a fence
around the base of that water tower?
Al-Jaff: That is correct.
McDonald: Okay. I have no further questions. Is there an applicant here or? If you would
state your name for the record please.
th
Steve Edwards: My name’s Steven Edwards. I work at 501 50 Street West. I’m representing
T-Mobile. Thanks for the opportunity to speak Mr. Chairman and council members. I hope this
gives you a better depiction of the actual size of the equipment. What we’re looking to do is
there is an existing fence around the property and what our fence will actually do is a security
fence. Typically we use a 6 foot 5 fence in circumstances like this, but there is an adjacent
property owner who’s fence is a little bit lower than our’s and his will have a pretty good shot
into our fence, so at the request of the neighbor we are proposing to use a higher fence. One of
the reasons we are, we’re having to use a higher fence is located on the back of the water tower
in this area right here is the actual spillway of the tower. And at the request of the building
inspector we’ve been asked to actually elevate our equipment by 18 inches, so any spillway that
comes out of the water tower will not enter into our equipment. It’s another reason for the higher
fence.
Papke: So is there adequate spacing on the bottom of the fence for water flow here in that
condition?
Steve Edwards: We’re wanting to have the bottom of the fence raised also.
McDonald: Okay. And then that will provide you with the security and also the screening that’s
required for this project?
Steve Edwards: Correct.
McDonald: Anyone else have any questions? Okay, I guess that’s it. Thank you very much. At
this point I’ll open it up as part of the public meeting. Anyone wishing to make comment on this
case, if you would come forward and state your case. State your name and address for the record
please.
44
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
Gil Kreidberg: My name’s Gil Kreidberg. I reside at 6444 Murray Hill Road. If you can look at
this picture here. This property right here, all of this here is mine. My house sits at ground that’s
noticeably higher than where the base of the water tower and this ground is here. The land
where they propose to put this unfortunately slopes from the tower down so even though I have a
6 foot high fence here, when they build this up to put the asphalt down and then build it up
another 18 inches, this thing really gets tall. And unfortunately conceptually the back part of
this, the furthest from the tower, which is unfortunately going to be 4 feet off my fence, is the
tallest part and represents a ventilating system for the equipment. Rather than look from every
aspect of my home back into this, even when the leaves are up, I still get a good shot in the
winter. It’s panorama. I’m not trying to preclude this. I’m trying to work with the city and
trying to work with T-Mobile by saying if you put up this wood fence, it’s high enough to at least
block it so I’m only looking at a wood fence instead of all this equipment. I’m not going to
make any bigger deal and move on so, that’s the reason for it. Because the other neighbors are
pretty blocked because the only other people are here and the tower blocks their view so it’s just
I get a full shot, and maybe my neighbor down here with one house further to the south of me,
but then they’ll have the same benefit of the wood fence blocking their line too. So I appreciate
your consideration. Thank you.
McDonald: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to make comment? Okay, seeing no one else get
forward, or step forward, I’ll close the public meeting and bring it back up before the
commissioners for discussion. Any discussion? Then I’m open for a motion.
Larson: I’ll give it a shot. Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use
Permit 06-21 for the construction of a 9 foot tall cedar fence with the following conditions, 1
through 3.
McDonald: Do I have a second?
Keefe: Second.
Larson moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Conditional Use Permit 06-21 for the construction of a 9 foot tall cedar fence with the
following conditions:
1. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to erecting the fence.
2. The fence plans and design must be signed by a structural engineer. The design must
demonstrate the fence’s ability to withstand a wind load of 90 MPH for a 3 second gust.
(Ref. 200 IBC Section 1609).
3. The proposed fence shall not impede nor alter existing drainage patterns.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
45