Laserfiche WebLink
Memo to Mayor and City CouncilN 98-5 <br />July 13, 1998 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br /> the property is located and will in keeping with spirit and intent of the <br /> ordinance. <br /> <br />The applicant claims the structural design of the tower allows the tower to <br />bend to off-load the wind resistance, not fall over. Therefore, the 150 foot <br />setback is not necessary for safety reasons. The 150 foot setback would also <br />place the tower in the center of most industrial lots and would interfere with <br />the reasonable use of the property or is impossible given the existing <br />development. <br /> <br />The hardship is particular to the land and structure involved in that the <br />property is only 280 feet wide which does not allow any location on the site <br />to meet the 150 foot setback. The tower is setback a minimum of 90 feet <br />which is more than half the height of the tower. <br /> <br />There are two other sites in the city with monopole towers, AT&T and APT, <br />that do not meet the setback requirements. There are also 3 guyyed lattice <br />towers located near the intersection of County Road 33 and Proctor Road <br />which do not meet setback requirements. Ail the towers referred to in this <br />paragraph were constructed prior to the current setback requirements. <br /> <br />The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the health, safety or <br />welfare of the residents. The granting of the variance will allow the <br />placement of the tower in an industrial area with little or no impact on any <br />residences. The granting of the variance will also allow for improved digital <br />wireless technology for Elk River. <br /> <br />Board of Adjustment Meeting <br /> <br />At the June 23rd Board of Adjustment meeting no one spoke at the public <br />hearing. The Board discussed the setback requirement and how it limits the <br />possible locations for antenna towers. The Board voted to deny the variance <br />request based on the following: <br /> <br />The applicant failed to show that the literal enforcement of the <br />ordinance will cause undue hardship. <br /> <br />The applicant failed to show the hardship is caused by special <br />conditions and circumstances which are peculiar to the property and <br />the structure involved and which are not characteristic of, or <br />applicable to, other lands or structure in the same area. <br /> <br />\\elkriver\sys\shrdoc\planning\scott\v98-5cc.doc <br /> <br /> <br />