Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 12/09/1993 APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1993 7 : 30 P.M. , CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 8080 MITCHELL ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: MICHAEL WILKUS (Chairman) , SHARON ROE ANDERSON, DELAVAN DYE, CORRINE DALQUIST LYNCH, MARY VASALY, RONALD MOELLER BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: ARTHUR WEEKS BOARD STAFF: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR JEAN JOHNSON RECORDING SECRETARY, SHARON STORHOLM I CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Wilkus called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 P.M. Roll call was taken as noted above. II APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Dye moved that the Board approve the agenda as presented. Lynch seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. III MINUTES MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board approved the minutes of the November 9, 1993 minutes as submitted. Vasaly seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. IV VARIANCES A. Request #93-49 by U.S. West NewVector Group, Inc. for 10125 Crosstown Circle for permission to construct a 100 foot monopole for celluar antennae. Jay Littlejohn, a representative of U. S. West New Vector, came forward to present the variance request. He said he had submitted a packet of information. He said that his main points were: 1 . They have had an antenna site on 169 and the Crosstown for two years now. • 2 . There are hills and valleys in the area that present a reception problem. (He displayed a drawing of the topography of the area) . 1 Minutes Board of Adjustments i Appeals December 9, 1993 3. The question had been considered whether or not it would be possible to provide good reception to customers without a variance. 4. After careful study, they came to the decision that good reception could not be provided without raising the height of the tower. 5. He noted that there was considerable interference caused by the Crosstown. 6. They would like to increase the height of the tower from 55' to 1001 . 7. The antenna would be raised up and then tilted down in order to provide reception beyond the hills in the area. Littlejohn added that as the City network expands, they will be allowed to go on this tower. There is no need for this at the present time, but a provision has been made for this need at a • future time. Johnson said that the Staff report outlines the considerations for this variance. The area is office and allows the present 55' height. The proponent would like to increase the height to 1001 . This area has many other antennas, dishes, etc that are taller than this would be. The hardship is that this increase in height will allow better cellular and 911 use for customers. A condition is requested that the City reserve the right for future space on the tower if necessary. There has been no opposition to the request. Moeller asked where the high towers listed in the report are located. Johnson answered that there were examples on Mitchell and on 169 & 212 . Also, the water tower near Eden Prairie Center is an additional example. Wilkus said that height variances had been given in several instances. • Vasaly asked if there were any other appropriate sites for the antenna. 2 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals December 9, 1993 Littlejohn answered that Cellular One cannot condemn the land, it must find a landlord willing to lease the space. He then explained how the phone signals change from cell site to cell site. They had picked the only site available. Vasaly asked if there had been any complaints. Littlejohn said that there had been numerous complaints that the reception has been poor for the cellular customers. Vasaly asked if there will be further requests for more height increases in the future. Littlejohn said that the engineers had originally asked for 1251 . He said that they would need to figure the minimum height requirement to provide good reception. They said that 100' would be minimum in order to send signals over the hills in the area. That is how this 100' figure was determined. Dye said that adequate service needs to be provided and a variance request was necessary. • Wilkus noted that this tower is located in a business district characterized by towers, dishes and poles, and not a residential district. Wilkus asked if there had been a variance granted for the KMSP tower. Johnson answered that one had been granted. Wilkus closed the public hearing. MOTION: Dye moved that the Board grant Variance to allow a 100' tower. The hardship would be that circumstances do not allow the company to provide reliable cellular service to the customers. A condition is to be added that states: "To further the public's health, welfare, and safety, space be reserved on the monopole to facilitate the City's communication network needs in the future. " Moeller seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. • 3 Minutes Board of Adjustments i Appeals December 9, 1993 B. Request #93-50 by James F. McNeill of 7251 Willow Creek Road to permit location of an accessory structure (storage shed) 2 feet from a rear lot line. City Code requires a 30 foot rear and side yard setback. James McNeill came forward and made an apology for the situation that had arisen. He went on to explain how it all happened: The property is located near Bryant Lake. He had been in a hurry to build his shed. The berm was being installed in his back yard. He was told to get the shed installed before the berm work was underway. He went to get a building permit. When he got home, a 12 ' by 18' slab had been installed for the shed. It did not look right to him so it was resurveyed and they found that the original survey had been wrong. Westwood came and resurveyed the area. Several problems then arose. It was determined that the cul de sac needed to be moved and he would be unable to get enough land to meet the setback for his shed. He tried to have the slab moved, but they could only move it 611 . A neighboring property owner said he would sell him sufficient land to meet the setback. (It was later found out • that this would have created massive problems for the neighbor. ) Lumber had been delivered to his home. With the neighbors assurance of extra land, the carpenters went ahead and constructed the shed. At the present site, no trees had to be removed and the neighbors are all pleased with the appearance. He said he should have had the area surveyed himself instead of going by the original survey. Johnson said that this is a rural area. Originally the assumption had been made that this was R1-22 zoning. The setback had started out at 10' and had been moved up to 301 . It is a steep and hilly site. The present location of the shed is suitable to the neighbors and works well with the configuration of the creek. Many favorable letters from neighbors and a developer to the north have been received. She showed photos of the shed on an overhead projector. McNeill added that a 25' - 30' dike separates the two types of neighborhoods. All the neighbors have approved of the shed. Vasaly asked about the mistake in the survey. McNeill said he followed the stake and read it wrong. He instructed the cement installers, as he wanted to save the trees. He said he should have been there. One problem led to • another. The neighbor had said he would provide the additional land that was needed. He had thought the problem was solved. This, however, would have created massive problems for the neighbor. The City had to relocate the cul de sac. There is no 4 Minutes Board of Adjustments A Appeals December 9, 1993 probability that anything else could be built close to this shed in the future because of its location. Moeller asked about the 7' door. McNeill said that is to provide access for lawn mowers, bikes, snowblowers, etc. There is no access for larger vehicles. There is a 5' high wall across the back. Moeller asked about the exterior. McNeill answered that it is of rough cut cedar and will be painted to match the house. Wilkus closed the public hearing. Vasaly complimented the applicant on his presentation. MOTION: Vasaly moved that the Board approve Variance Request 93-50 citing a hardship that the survey stakes were placed in error. The neighbors all approve. It is • difficult to move the shed now and vegetation would be disrupted. Anderson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. V. OLD BUSINESS NONE VI NEW BUSINESS Johnson said that there are no items for the January meeting at this time. A work shop could be held if the Board desires. There could also be a special meeting request. VII ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moeller moved that the Board adjourn. Anderson seconded the motion. Board adjourned at 8: 10 P.M. BARBUEAMBOAIMIN12-9 • 5