2005.07.18 RESO 2005-0040 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

RESOLUTION 200540 APPROVING FINDINGS OF FACT DENYING A VARIANCE FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS FOR A PROPERTY LINE SETBACK FOR A 190 -FOOT HIGH COMMUNICATIONS TOWER WHEREAS, Cingular Wireless, has requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the construction of a 190 -foot high communications tower at 15380 Keystone Avenue North, and; WHEREAS, Cingular Wireless, has requested approval of a variance to allow for the construction of a communications tower approximately 120 feet from the east property line, where the ordinance requires a distance at least equal to the height of the tower, and; WHEREAS, Cingular Wireless, has requested approval of a variance to allow for the construction of a communications tower approximately 220 feet from a residential structure, where the ordinance requires at least 500 feet, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the application for a Conditional Use Permit and variances at a duly called Public Hearing. WHEREAS, The applicant requested a waiver of the rights granted by Minnesota Statue 15.99 allowing for an extension of the review period. The applicant was requested to clarify and state its understanding that its extension request includes those matters on which the Planning Commission did make a recommendation at its hearing -the property setback variance. Staff spoke with the applicant's representative and asked for a statement from the applicant in that regard and notified the applicant's representative that the matter would be addressed by the City Council on July 18a' if no clarification were forthcoming. WHEREAS, The Planning Commission approved the waiver for the conditional use permit and a variance for a setback from a residential structure and in reliance thereon has set the matter on for a continued hearing at the Planning Commission before making a recommendation. WHEREAS, The Planning Commission voted to deny the variance request for a setback from the property line. WHEREAS, The City has repeatedly requested the applicant to provide supplemental information to ensure compliance with the ordinance as identified to the applicant, including requests for clarification about the feasibility of alternative sites of which there appear to be a number in the vicinity. The applicant has not fin-nished this information and it would not appear that there are not a number of feasible alternatives or that the suggested location is required to ensure cellular coverage in the area compared to other feasible alternatives.