Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005.07.18 RESO 2005-0040RESOLUTION 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. Resolution 200540 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUGO, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does deny the variance for a setback to a property line, based on the findings contained in the staff report dated July 11, 2005, including the following: 1. Chapter 35 of the Hugo City Code prohibits the construction of new antenna support structures, unless it can be demonstrated that locating antennas on existing antenna support structures is not feasible. 2. The City has requested information from the applicant to permit the evaluation of the feasibility of locating a combination of antennas on the existing support structures to provide coverage in this area. The applicant has not provided the requested information, and therefore the City is not satisfied that a new communications tower is necessary at this location or that several feasible alternatives do not exist. 3. The applicant has indicated that a new communications tower will be constructed in the Fall of 2005 in Marine on St. Croix. The City has requested information from the applicant to demonstrate how the tower in Marine will impact the coverage in the area surrounding the proposed tower in Hugo. The applicant has not provided the requested information and therefore the City is not satisfied that a new communications tower is necessary at this location. 4. The tower will be plainly visible from non -compatible uses and public right-of- way. Section 13 of Chapter 35 of the Antenna ordinance requires the maximum amount of screening possible to preserve off-site views. The City has identified other nearby properties, including several properties that currently contain 160 - foot high utility poles, where the tower would be far less obtrusive to adjoining landowners and public right-of-way,. The applicant has not provided any information related to the feasibility of locating a tower on other property. 5. The area where the tower is proposed to be located is in a large lot rural area. Observation of setback requirements on other parcels would permit the tower to be located in a more visually inconspicuous location than the proposed one -where the tower is proposed to be installed nearer to neighboring properties than would otherwise be necessary. Placement of the tower farther within a large parcel under these circumstances may allow it to be better shielded, screened and away from neighboring properties and their sightlines. Placement of the tower nearer to property lines here necessarily increases its visibility to neighboring properties. 6. A variance is not approved for the foregoing reasons and because: a. There are no circumstances unique to the property in question that would cause undue hardship to the applicant. b. Other structures are available for co -location, and other property in preferable locations may be available for the tower and thus no hardship is shown. C. The tower will not be screened from adjacent property, public waters, and public right-of-way, and the reduced setback increases the visual impact beyond what might otherwise be expected Resolution 200540 Page 3 d. The variance will alter the character of the area, by allow a tower closer to the property line than what would be otherwise expected or what is otherwise possible and feasible e. The property can be put to reasonable use without the granting of the variance f. The variance is not in keeping with the spirit and intent and text of the ordinance. g. The applicant stated on the record at the Planning Commission meeting on July 14, 2005 that the tower could be moved to a different spot on the property to be in compliance with the ordinance. 7. The tower is opposed to the spirit intent and text of the ordinance, as the need for the tower has not been demonstrated, it does not comply with setback requirements, the screening requirements, or the co -location requirements 8. The property can be put to reasonable use without the granting of a variance to allow for a setback encroachment for a communications tower. 9. The essential character of the neighborhood will be altered by the approval of a communications tower in this location. 10. The denial will not have the effect of denying cellular communication coverage in the area, because there is already coverage provided by other companies, other locations for towers appear to be feasible, have not been shown not to be feasible and other existing towers are available for co -location. ADOPTED by the City Council this 18a' day of July 2005. 4 Atton�yor ATTEST: I���jo- A'��r Mary Creager, City Cl