Loading...
07-24-2001 BA MIN • MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL TUESDAY,JULY 24, 2001 Members Present: Chair Pederson,Commissioners Baker,Franz,Mesich,Ropp and Schuster Members Absent: None Staff Present: Michele McPherson,Director of Planning;Scott Harlicker,Senior Planner; Chris Leeseberg,Planner/Park Planner; Debbie Huebner,Recording Secretary; Peter Beck, City Attorney; Terry Maurer, City Engineer 1. Call Meeting To Order Pursuant to due call and notice thereof,the meeting of the Elk River Board of Adjustments was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chair Pederson. 2. Consider 7/24/01 Board of Adjustments Agenda COMMISSIONER MESICH MOVED TO APPROVE THE JULY 24, 2001, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AGENDA. COMMISSIONER BAKER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. • 3. Consider 6/26/01 Board of Adjustments Minutes COMMISSIONER FRANZ MOVED TO APPROVE THE JUNE 26,2001 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MINUTES. COMMISSIONER ROPP SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0-1. Commissioner Baker abstained. 4.1. Request by Loucks Associates (Qwest) for setback variance for cellular communication tower,Public Hearing— Case No. V 01-05 Staff report by Scott Harlicker. Loucks Associates, on behalf of Qwest, is requesting a variance to the setback requirement for antenna towers.Qwest proposes to lease a 27'x 22' space for the tower on a 5.2 acre lot located on the east side of Highway 169. The proposed tower is 150'feet high which requires a 150-foot setback from all property lines. A 75-foot variance is needed from the west property line and a 25-foot variance from the south property line. He noted that the nearest house is 213 feet away.Mr.Harlicker stated that Qwest has not found a co-location site that would provide the coverage they need. Mr. Harlicker reviewed the five findings required for granting a variance,and explained how staff determined that the applicant meets the requirements. Commissioner Franz asked how many other towers do not meet the current required setbacks. Mr.Harlicker stated that four of the seven existing towers do not meet the setback setback requirements. Commissioner Schuster asked if the applicant would be able to increase the height of the tower. Mr. Harlicker explained that they would need to come back to the Planning • Commission in order to do so. Board of Adjustments Minutes July 24,2001 Page 2 • Chair Pederson opened the public hearing. Jared Anderson,representing Loucks Associates,stated that Qwest has been trying to find a site for the proposed tower for approximately one year.He stated he has a letter from their RF engineer,stating reasons why it would not be possible to co-locate. Mr.Anderson stated that this site is the only one they have found where they can minimize the height of the tower. He stated that they have spoken with the adjacent property owners and they did not have a problem with the location of the tower. Rick Hoglund, adjacent property owner, stated that his only concern is that he was hoping to purchase a portion of the adjacent property,and that the required setbacks for the tower may limit his ability to do so. Commissioner Baker asked if Qwest would be leasing the property. Mr.Anderson stated they have a lease with the property owner. Commissioner Schuster asked if the rest of the lot could be developed. Mr.Harlicker stated that there is an existing single family home on the property so no other principle structures could be built on it. The applicant could build an accessory structure in accordance with usual zoning requirements for size and setbacks. There being no further public comment, Chair Pederson closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BAKER MOVED APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY • LOUCKS ASSOCIATES (QWEST)FOR A VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED SETBACKS FOR AN ANTENNA TOWER, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 1. LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL CAUSE UNDUE HARDSHIP IN THAT THE TOWER IS DESIGNED TO COLLAPSE ON ITSELF AND NOT FALL OVER. THE TOWER IS OVER 200 FEET FROM THE ADJACENT RESIDENCE AND HIGHWAY 169.THE 150 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE WOULD PLACE THE TOWER AT A LOWER ELEVATION ON THE HILL AND WOULD REQUIRE A HIGHER TOWER IN ORDER TO MEET COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS. BECAUSE OF THE WIDTH OF THE LOT,THE 150 FOOT SETBACK CAN NOT BE MET FROM BOTH THE EAST AND WEST PROPERTY LINES. 2. THE HARDSHIP IS CAUSED BY SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THE PROPERTY AND STRUCTURE INVOLVED AND WHICH ARE NOT CHARACTERISTIC OF, OR APPLICABLE TO, OTHER LANDS OR STRUCTURE IN THE SAME AREA. THE HARDSHIP IS PARTICULAR TO THE LAND AND STRUCTURE INVOLVED IN THAT THE PROPERTY IS ONLY 225 FEET WIDE WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW ANY LOCATION ON THE SITE TO MEET THE 150 FOOT SETBACK FROM BOTH THE EAST AND WEST PROPERTY LINES. BY SHIFTING THE TOWER TO THE NORTH THE TOWER WILL BE AT A LOWER ELEVATION ON THE HILL AND THE • TOWER WILL HAVE TO BE TALLER TO MEET THE COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS. Board of Adjustments Minutes July 24,2001 Page 3 • 3. THE LITERAL APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE WOULD DEPRIVE THE PETITIONER OF RIGHTS ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME DISTRICT UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS ORDINANCE. THERE ARE TWO OTHER SITES IN THE CITY WITH MONO-POLE TOWERS,AT&T AND APT, WHICH DO NOT MEET SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. THERE ARE ALSO 3 GUYED LATTICE TOWERS LOCATED NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF COUNT ROAD 33 AND PROCTOR ROAD AND A LATTICE TOWER NEAR THE HIGH SCHOOL WHICH DO NOT MEET SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. THE PROPOSED TOWER DOES MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE UNDERLYING Al ZONING DISTRICT. 4. THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT A CONSEQUENCE OF THE PETITIONER'S OWN ACTION OR INACTION. THE NEED FOR THE VARIANCE IS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE WIDTH OF THE LOT AND THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SITE. 5. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO OR ADVERSELY AFFECT THE HEALTH,SAFETY OR WELFARE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AND WILL IN KEEPING WITH SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE. 6. THE VARIANCE IS CONTINGENT UPON APPROVAL OF THE ZONE • CHANGE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BY LOUCKS ASSOCIATES. COMMISSIONER MESICH SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 6. Adjournment There being no further business, COMMISSIONER MESICH MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. COMMISSIONER BAKER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. The meeting of the Elk River Board of Adjustments adjourned at 6:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ceja/ Debbie Huebner Recording Secretary •