Laserfiche WebLink
Resolution 200540 <br />Page 2 <br />NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF <br />THE CITY OF HUGO, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does deny the variance <br />for a setback to a property line, based on the findings contained in the staff report dated <br />July 11, 2005, including the following: <br />1. Chapter 35 of the Hugo City Code prohibits the construction of new antenna <br />support structures, unless it can be demonstrated that locating antennas on <br />existing antenna support structures is not feasible. <br />2. The City has requested information from the applicant to permit the evaluation of <br />the feasibility of locating a combination of antennas on the existing support <br />structures to provide coverage in this area. The applicant has not provided the <br />requested information, and therefore the City is not satisfied that a new <br />communications tower is necessary at this location or that several feasible <br />alternatives do not exist. <br />3. The applicant has indicated that a new communications tower will be constructed <br />in the Fall of 2005 in Marine on St. Croix. The City has requested information <br />from the applicant to demonstrate how the tower in Marine will impact the <br />coverage in the area surrounding the proposed tower in Hugo. The applicant has <br />not provided the requested information and therefore the City is not satisfied that <br />a new communications tower is necessary at this location. <br />4. The tower will be plainly visible from non -compatible uses and public right-of- <br />way. Section 13 of Chapter 35 of the Antenna ordinance requires the maximum <br />amount of screening possible to preserve off-site views. The City has identified <br />other nearby properties, including several properties that currently contain 160 - <br />foot high utility poles, where the tower would be far less obtrusive to adjoining <br />landowners and public right-of-way,. The applicant has not provided any <br />information related to the feasibility of locating a tower on other property. <br />5. The area where the tower is proposed to be located is in a large lot rural area. <br />Observation of setback requirements on other parcels would permit the tower to <br />be located in a more visually inconspicuous location than the proposed one -where <br />the tower is proposed to be installed nearer to neighboring properties than would <br />otherwise be necessary. Placement of the tower farther within a large parcel <br />under these circumstances may allow it to be better shielded, screened and away <br />from neighboring properties and their sightlines. Placement of the tower nearer to <br />property lines here necessarily increases its visibility to neighboring properties. <br />6. A variance is not approved for the foregoing reasons and because: <br />a. There are no circumstances unique to the property in question <br />that would cause undue hardship to the applicant. <br />b. Other structures are available for co -location, and other <br />property in preferable locations may be available for the tower <br />and thus no hardship is shown. <br />C. The tower will not be screened from adjacent property, public <br />waters, and public right-of-way, and the reduced setback <br />increases the visual impact beyond what might otherwise be <br />expected <br />