Loading...
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