Laserfiche WebLink
MIMDTBS OF THE FLAWIMC COMNISSIOB MBBTniG OCfOMBt U, 1$I9 <br />ZOBIHG FILE •14C3-COMTEL OF MIEMESOTE COBTIHI <br />explained lhat Contel wished to construct a renote switch <br />building. Gaffron said that Contel has provided a survey showing <br />the location of the neighboring house in relation to the proposed <br />site of the switch building. The applicant is seeking approval <br />of a 16’ setback variance from the north residential lot line* <br />and a 4’ setback variance from the south residential lot line. <br />Gaffron referenced a letter that the City had received from Mr. <br />McCurdy* the neighbor to the north* requesting that screening be <br />provided to lessen the noise and visual impact. <br />Mr. Broziak said that there are existing trees on the site <br />of the proposed switch building as well as existing trees on Mr. <br />McCurdy's property. He said that the air conditioners that would <br />be used for the building have a maximum of 5*000 b.t.u.’s* which <br />is comparable to an average household air conditioner. He said <br />that only one of the two air conditioners would be operating at <br />any given time* as one would kick in if the other stopped. He <br />further stated that the air conditioners would only operate in <br />the summer when there is a need to keep the machinery inside the <br />building cool. He said that it would be no different than <br />someone building a house and putting in a window air conditioner. <br />Mr. Seeman distributed pictures of a completed structure <br />that is similar to the proposed structure. <br />Planning Commissioner Cohen questioned why the air <br />conditioners could not be placed on the other side of the <br />building? <br />Mr. King said that due to the layout of the equipment inside <br />the building* the air conditioners must be located as proposed. <br />Planning Commissioner Brown suggested turning the building <br />so that the air conditioners would be located on the other side. <br />Mr. King said that would interfere with the ability to <br />access the building and the capability to connect the building to <br />the existing electrical cables. <br />Planning Commissioner Bellows questioned why a building of <br />this size could not be in a location where it would meet the <br />setbacks? <br />Gaffron replied that if the building was located so as to <br />meet the setbacks* it would be out in the open without the <br />benefit of existing screening. <br />Chairman Kelley inquired as to the Planning Commission's <br />recommendations for a previous* similar application? <br />Gaffron replied that the Planning Commission had recommended <br />approval of the N.W. Bell application for a conditional use <br />permit. Gaffron noted that the structure in that application was <br />to be located within a residential lot with a setback of