Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 16, 1989 <br />ZONING FILE #1463-CONTEL OF MINNESOTA CONTINUED <br />explained that Contel wished to construct a remote 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 tha switch building. The applicant is seeking approval <br />of a 16' setback variance from the north residential lot line, <br />and a 4' setback va-iance 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 s4 `'e <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 tre other stopped. He <br />further stated that the air conditict�::rs 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 s4•,.'=ar to the proposed structure. <br />Plan.,�.►,g 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 t%he 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 'hat the structure in that application was <br />to be located within a residential lot with a setback of <br />7 <br />.. ..y n-•,. - .,. ...,may, q..�. .�y,w... .. r,-�.�rM�:' •--.•..r•. '-r•. •r-7"I^y. _ _ ^ f r•r •.. . �� ., .w�u.v e•i. -r! P++e+.OW <br />s <br />