Laserfiche WebLink
U S WEST Wireless, L.L.C. <br />426 North Fairview Avenue Room 101 <br />St. Paul. MN 55014 <br /> <br />June 3, 1998 <br /> <br />Mr. Scott Harlicker <br />13065 Orono Parkway <br />P.O. Box 490 <br />Elk River, MN 55330 <br /> <br />RE: Additional information regarding US West Wireless's proposed <br /> Communications Facility at 19050 Industrial Blvd. N.W. <br /> <br />Site No. SCL-005 <br /> <br />Mr. Scott Harlicker, <br /> <br />As you requested please find enclosed a narrative of the required findings for a variance <br />to be granted. <br /> <br />1) The literal enforcement of the ordinance would cause undue (unnecessary, <br /> unavoidable, extreme) hardship. <br /> <br />The required setbacks equal to the height of the monop.[2le places an unnecessary <br />hardship for the proposed facility. As the structural i/ttegrity letter attached as <br />Exhibit C to the conditional use permit application indicates, in the event of <br />extremely high winds the monopole is designed not to fall but to bend like an upside <br />down j just enough to off-load the wind resistance. The literal enforcement of the <br />ordinance would force the pole to unnecessarily be placed 150 'from all property <br />lines. This would place the facility near the center of most industrial zoned properties <br />which would greatly interfere with reasonable development of the property, or be <br />impossible due to existing development as is the case with the proposed site. It is <br />important to note that the proposed site is centrally located in an industrial park, <br />which greatly helps to buffer it from residential areas. <br /> <br />The hardship is caused by special conditions and circumstances which are peculiar to <br />the land and structure involved and which are not characteristic of or applicable to <br />other lands or structures in the same district. <br /> <br />The hardship is peculiar to the land and structure involved. The proposed monopole <br />does not have the same safety concerns regarding setbacks, as would a building or <br />even a guyed tower. The proposed monopo/e location works with the existing fully <br />developed property and gives it at least 90'setback from all property lines. Ninety <br />feet is well over half the height qf the monopole and clearly poses no threat to public <br />safety. <br /> <br />Access2*" Advanced PCSTM <br />Paging Services <br /> <br /> <br />