Laserfiche WebLink
Board members comments: <br />Mr. Zergott questioned were the fence which runs right behind the bleachers are located and <br />questioned if it would be changed at all. 1VIr. Richards suggested that they would be placing <br />a gate for truck access. They will remove a section of fence during construction and then put <br />it back once the site is complete. 1VIr. Zergott suggested placing the mechanical equipment <br />behind the fence just north of the road. Mr. Richards suggested that they would need <br />variances in the suggested area. Mr. Zergott believed that having high evergreens around <br />the compound could cause problems. Ms. Habinski suggested that when they design the <br />layout of the site it is designed to minimize the need for any variances. They want to comply <br />to the code, matter of fact they do not need an 18-foot drive but the City code calls for the <br />drive to be 18-feet wide. They would be happy to make it smaller but they do not want to <br />require variances. Mr. Conway indicated that there are two issues with this proposal. One <br />is that the landscaping is not 15-feet and the other is a light is not allowed on the pole. They <br />had a lot of issues but brought thein into compliance. This area is a little different, Planning <br />Commission can actually wave a lot of these conditions in a conditional use area, if they see <br />that the development does not have any adverse effect. The Architectural Review Board can <br />recommend that they do not need a 15-foot wide landscaping bed due to the location being <br />300 feet away from residents, that could be a suggestion. The driveway, if they decide they <br />do want to cut it down, obviously 18-feet wide is so that two cars can pass each other. He <br />does not know how often two cars would be passing each other out there. So there is a strong <br />urge by the school board and developer to cut down the width. He thinks that argument can <br />be made before Planning Commission and say we will only have a car going in and then <br />turning around and coming back out. So do not shut yourself out these are not go before The <br />Board of Zoning Appeals issues, these are negotiable things that conditions on site may allow <br />them to alter. Mr. Zergott questioned if he could then make his recommendations to the <br />Planning Commission regarding possible change in placement. Whether or not they want to <br />landscape an area that kids will be climbing into and then not be seen at all. Ms. Habinski <br />suggested that typically when they are dealing with schools the landscape requirements are <br />waved as they want as much visibility as possible. Mr. Zergott voiced that if the pole is <br />moved then the area could be landscaped, as the kids would not have access to the area. <br />However, were it is being proposed the kids will have full access to the equipment and pole. <br />Mr. Crook questioned what the area is used for now. Mr. Zergott indicated that the area is <br />now used as an area for the marching band to get lined up to enter the field. If this is placed <br />there can never be a change in the bleacher area for as long as Sprintcom's contract is for. He <br />questioned the length of the contract between the school and Sprintcom. Mr. Richarcls <br />indicated it was a 25-year contract. Mr. Zergott voiced then the prime space in the stadium <br />area is tied up. Ms. Habinski indicated that the school board placed a clause in the contract <br />that if they ever want to redesign the stadium they have a right to relocate the compound. <br />Mr. Richards suggested that the placement was chosen for the buffering of the base of the <br />compound. This would keep the site from having a wooden pole then a metal pole then a <br />wooden pole again. This metal pole is placed out to one side, and based on everyone who <br />reviewed the site as far as construction and setback this was best. Mr. Crook questioned <br />what was further south on the site and questioned if it could be placed due south toward the <br />parking lot. Mr. Adams indicated that the land to the south is the root ditch he believed. <br />The applicants showed a photo of the proposed coinpound from the perspective of standing <br />to the north east corner looking to the southwest. Mr. 12ichards indicated that the photo <br />shows a triangle antenna but it will be a flush mounted antenna not a triangle antenna so it <br />will be flush to the pole. Mr. Crook questioned if the proposed site was the best location <br />6