Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Minutes - October 24,2000 <br />Pagc 5 <br /> <br />Council Business. continued <br /> <br />Verizon believes the hardship criteria has been met due to the lot width not allowing the <br />30 ft. setback. Verizon conducted a search of other city locations, but did not find a site <br />adequate for this use. Tcague does not feel the hardship is caused by the lot width or lack <br />of available parcels. The hardship is caused by the applicant's desire to construct a 125 ft. <br />towcr that cannot be supported on this site. Also, staff has concerns granting a variance <br />which may establish a precedence for other cellular companies to request a variance to the <br />sctback requirement. <br /> <br />Staff recommends denial, howcver, if Council wishes to approve this request, it is <br />suggested an ordinance amendment regarding setbacks that would allow the proposal <br />rather than requiring a variance. An amendment would require language stating the pole <br />be cngineered with a break point of 80 ft. to prevent poles from falling onto adjacent <br />properties. <br /> <br />Hoffman asked if the City Attorncy agrees with staff recommendation. City Attorney <br />Charlie LcFevere explained that the landowner is not being denied reasonable use of the <br />property being that another monopole is located at this site. The Code does provide for a <br />special use permit for a tower that is taller than what is permitted provided that horizontal <br />setbacks are met. In this case, the setbacks are not being met. <br /> <br />Jay Littlejohn, Verizon, requested the consideration be tabled to allow staff and Planning <br />Commission review of an ordinance amendment. After that time, Verizon would come <br />back with a special use permit and amendment to allow a collapsing tower. Teague said <br />the Code does say height limitations can be exceeded through the use of a special use <br />permit, but the setback must meet the height ofthe tower which is not in this case. <br /> <br />Moore-Sykes asked Littlejohn if there are any other sites within the City which could <br />accommodate this tower. Littlejohn would not support building multiple towers, and <br />building a taller pole at this location would avoid additional towers. Littlejohn has looked <br />at other sites, but they would affect nearby residential areas. Moore-Sykes verified that <br />the Sprint tower would not allow adequate coverage. <br /> <br />Ron Nelson, Violet Lane, asked ifthis proposed tower would overlap coverage of other <br />Vcrizon towers. Littlejohn said Verizon does have one location on a New Brighton water <br />tower. Calvin Vogelman, Verizon, verified that the only other nearby monopole locations <br />are in Arden Hills and Mounds View. Fulton feels Nelson's question is appropriate and <br />would like to sce mapping of coverage overlaps within New Brighton. Littlejohn will <br />provide this information to Council. <br /> <br />Moore-Sykes requested Verizon to research alternate sites within the City, and provide <br />information regarding overlap coverage. She is not convinced that in extreme wind <br />situations, a tower would not break. <br /> <br />Motion by Hoffman, scconded by Moore-Sykes, to TABLE CONSIDERATION OF <br />VERIZON WIRELESS SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE (SPOO-14 AND <br />VNOO-7), DIRECT STAFF TO RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT OF A ZONING <br />ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, REQUEST APPLICANT TO RESEARCH <br />ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS, AND PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION RELATING <br />TO COVERAGE OVERLAP. <br /> <br />3 Ayes - 1 Naye (Gunderman). Motion Carried. <br /> <br />Council Business <br /> <br />Special Use Permit for <br />monopole - Verizon <br />Report 00-248 <br />