Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 01/12/1995 APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 1995 7:30 P.M. , CITY CENTER 8080 MITCHELL ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: ARTHUR WEEKS (CHAIR) , CLIFF DUNHAM, DELAVAN DYE, CORRINE LYNCH, RONALD MOELLER, KATHY NELSON, MARY VASALY STAFF PRESENT: STEVE DURHAM, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR SCOTT KIPP, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR LINDA BAHLEY, RECORDING SECRETARY, BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: NONE CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Weeks called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 P.M. All members were present and Lynch arrived at 7 :40 P.M. I . APPROVAL OF AGENDA • MOTION• Dye moved that the Board approve the Agenda as presented. Moeller seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. II . MINUTES OF DECEMBER 20, 1994 MEETING MOTION• Dye moved that the Board accept the Minutes of December 20, 1994 as amended: page 7, second paragraph from the bottom where it says, Dunham stated. . . , it should read, Weeks stated. . . . The second sentence should read, if they stick with the requirement of utilizing other newspapers, they could come back and still request another variance. The third sentence should read, they would have to file another request. They would have to pay another filing fee. Dunham seconded the motion. Motion passed with Moeller abstaining. III . VARIANCES Weeks explained the order of the Variance presentation process to those in attendance. . 1 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals Jnuary 12, 1995 A. Request #94-32 by Bruce Bren Homes, Inc. for approval to construct a home with a 39 foot setback to Riley Creek (Code requires 100 foot setback) (Request for continuance to January 12, 1995 meeting. ) Durham noted that the proponent has submitted a letter dated, January 6, 1995, withdrawing this request. B. Request #95-01 by Michael Loosen for 6300 Point Chase Road (1) to permit three lots of the proposed Loosen Addition without lot frontage on a public street City Code requires all lots to have frontage on a public street and, (2) to permit the platting of proposed Rural Outlot A 'of 5.3 acres City Code requires a 10 acre minimum lot size in the Rural Zoning District. Michael Loosen, 6300 Point Chase Road, reviewed his variance request with the Board. He noted that he has owned his property for 16 years and would like to divide it into three single family lots and one outlot. This modest development of four homes will save the trees on the property, control erosion, save wildlife, and allow retention of the hill and its beauty. His plan shows a 13% tree loss, a driveway, and are proposing a conservancy easement over part of the property. He commented that he has received 100% approval from the Planning Commission and the City Council. Durham noted that this site is characterized by wetland. The road access into the lots would not require major removal of trees or major grading. The plan is to just have the three lots serviced by a private road. He also noted that the Planning Commission has reviewed the project and the City Council has approved the project. Vasaly expressed concern about the property being zoned rural in this area. Durham explained that most land in Eden Prairie is zoned Rural until actual development occurs. Dye expressed concern about the number of lots on the property. Loosen replied that they have added a house on the property which now makes it four lots . • 2 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals Jnuary 12, 1995 Dunham suggested the driveway width being wider than 12 feet wide. Loosen noted that at some point on the driveway it will be 16 feet wide. Dunham asked which road option are they deciding on. Durham replied they are going with road option one. Nelson noted, regarding the conservancy easement, that there would be no building through that area permanently, and she asked if that easement is in place or is it being proposed. Durham replied that there would not be any building in the easement, and that the easement is in place. Moeller asked if there was a verbal agreement between him and the City regarding cross access agreements . Loosen replied that they have a written agreement with the City Engineer. Moeller asked if this applied to him or applicants to the other three potential residents . Loosen replied that it applies to all the lots according to their deeds . • Dunham questioned whether Mr. Loosen discussed with the other parties involved the potential of three more lots . Loosen responded that he has discussed it and has an agreement in writing. He noted that the owner of the property is here tonight. Vasaly asked if there was a need to amend the agreement to reflect the changes . Loosen replied that it's a broad enough agreement, and that's on advisement from his attorney. Moeller expressed concern about emergency vehicle access and turn-around. Durham noted that there's a Development Review Committee that meets on all projects, and it has been reviewed by the fire marshal. The fire marshal believes there is enough access on the site but did require a turn-around at the top of the road on the very north portion of the site. Nelson questioned if they ever decide to develop on outlot A, would they have access to that parcel. Loosen replied that the plan is with access without the property. Nelson asked if outlot A is ever developed, would it be developed as a single family. Durham replied it is guided low density residential . • 3 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals Jnuary 12, 1995 Dye asked if there is a street dedication as part of this . Durham replied that there is no petition for street right-of-way. The private drive will be maintained by all the property owners . Weeks expressed concern about what Mr. Loosen's original intent is on how to utilize this property. Loosen responded just for his family to live in. Vasaly asked what the slope of the driveway is . Loosen replied that it's 12% on the common driveway. Weeks opened the public hearing. Weeks closed the public hearing. Moeller expressed concern about the driveway with the turn-around. Durham noted that a condition of the variance could be that the fire marshal has the final review process . • Vasaly expressed concern that this reminds of her another variance request that they approved where there was a common driveway. Weeks commented that a 12% slope is very steep and he expressed concern about that. Kipp noted that the previous variance request with a common driveway, referred to by Vasaly, was up to 20% at one point, plus it had a northerly exposure so the ice wouldn't melt. The plan was to minimize the grading to 12% . Nelson expressed concern about the 12 foot wide driveway being wide enough for two cars to pass . Durham replied that it could be narrow when there is a lot of ice and snow. It could possibly go to 16 feet and that's why it was mentioned in the report. He noted that the primary concern was the tree loss, so they didn't do the 16 feet drive. MOTION: Dye moved that the Board approve variance request #95- 01 subject to the proponent meeting the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and the requirement of the • 4 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals Jnuary 12, 1995 fire marshal, and it be conditional on the driveway being completed all the way through to the 4 lots before construction starts in order to make sure there is sufficient space for turn-around, and that the fire marshal to review it to make a determination as to the turn-around. The hardship in this case is the removal of trees and maintaining the property in a conservation state. Dunham seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. C. Request #95-02 by Anne and David Florenzano for 9470 Lakeland Terrace (1) To permit reconstruction of a deck 59 ' from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of Lake Riley, 2) To permit construction of a new attached garage 70' from the OHWL of Lake Riley. The Shoreland Code requires a 100' setback from the OHWL (3) To permit a side yard setback of 9' City Code requires a 15 , side yard setback in the R1-22 Zoning District. • Anne Florenzano, 9470 Lakeland Terrace, reviewed her variance request with the Board. She said that the reason for adding on a three car garage is because they have a serious drainage problem. To correct this problem they are proposing to regrade the whole front of the house to the level of the front step, and redirect the flow of water away from the house using the natural existing drainage areas . Regrading of the whole front of the house would be eliminating the use of the existing garages and that's why they are proposing building a new garage at a right angle at the new grade level . They are proposing a three car garage, not a four car garage as stated in the report. It would go into a 15 yard setback and there is no other feasible side of the house to add a garage on to. The proposed garage site is totally screened from the neighbor's house, Mr. and Mrs . Guy Schoenecker, by evergreens and deciduous woods . Because of the extensive remodeling of their home on the inside and the value they are adding, it warrants the addition of a three car garage. She noted that the reason for the reconstruction of the existing deck is because of a personal reason. Her sister-in-law is seriously ill with MS and is in a • 5 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals Jnuary 12, 1995 wheelchair. There is no way of getting her into the house except by lifting her over the deck. They want to provide wheelchair accessibility for her because they host all the family gatherings in their home. Durham noted that the DNR reviewed the shoreland variance request and Staff has received no calls from any neighbors in opposition of the variance request. Moeller asked if they considered moving the garage westward and what problems does that create towards the mound septic system. Florenzano replied that there is a whole house in between the garages, and the septic system is on that side of the house. Moeller suggested taking the existing land on which the garage sits and moving it southwest towards the center of the house. Florenzano responded that she does not think it's possible. She noted that their well is right in front of the house, adjacent to the existing place where the garages are. Moeller asked if their well is under their existing drive. Florenzano replied that it's just to the left of the drive. Dave Florenzano noted that they considered that design but the cars can't drive up without going up the walkway. Moeller asked what treatment will be done when they take out the garage doors. Florenzano replied that it's a country block and will be straight forward to remove the garage doors and build it up with cement blocks and windows . The windows will be similar to the ones left of the garage in the pictures . Nelson expressed concern about whether the proposed garage doors will go out to the street. Durham replied that there is no public road in this area. Nelson questioned how close does this come to the private driveway. Florenzano responded that it comes several feet from that drive. It is their drive up to their house. Durham noted that the lake elevation is 864 and the home is 875 . • 6 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals Jnuary 12, 1995 Dye asked if the drive is being built on the same elevation or being leveled. Florenzano replied that it would be built on the same elevation as the front stoop. Vasaly expressed concern about Tract D. Florenzano noted that it 's a lot owned by Mr. Schoenecker and it's vacant. It is not a buildable lot because it's too small for a home. Dunham noted that he sees where the confusion is involving a three stall versus a four stall garage, because of the size of the garage doors . He said there is room left even with three doors. Florenzano noted that it leaves an entry way from the garage and a small landing so they can get a ramp in for her sister-in- law. Dunham suggested moving the garages to the southwest and eliminating the setback problem. Florenzano replied that if it's moved far enough to the side so it • doesn't go into the setback, then the first stall is too close to the front stoop. Dunham suggested moving the one stall closest to the house and make it narrower, and move it to the southwest. Weeks opened the public hearing. Weeks closed the public hearing. Moeller expressed concern about there being quite a drop off on the eastern edge of the rear edge of the garage. Florenzano noted that there will be a retaining wall. MOTION: Vasaly moved that the Board approve variance request #95-02, the hardship being with respect to the shoreland setback, a need for modification, the need for a wheelchair. There is no impact on the shoreland, and it wouldn't have any greater impact on the shoreland than the already existing site. The topography caused the drainage problem, and the adjacent lot being a non-buildable lot. Dye seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 7 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals Jnuary 12, 1995 D. Request #95-03 by Lynn Charlson for east of Spring Road and north of U.S. Highway #1691212 . The applicant request the variances as noted in the report. Brett Hope, 4700 Wall Oak Drive, reviewed his variance request with the Board. He noted that the sole purpose of this subdivision is to create a parcel of land more commonly known as, Savanna. In doing so, they had the property surveyed and found there were two areas of encroachment on the property that rendered environmentally invaluable to the City. Weeks questioned what type of development is the subdivision for. Hope replied no development, it's for preservation. He noted that Tract A and B have been encroached upon for many years . Tract A is an aluminum irrigation pipe which did not fit in with the whole Savanna parcel. Kipp noted that as part of the City of Eden Prairie • referendum, there was a large parcel of land that the City picked for acquisition. In the process of getting that parcel prepared for acquisition, they needed to subdivide it. Weeks asked how billboards fit in with this . Kipp replied that the City has tried to remove the billboards in town. The Staff Report suggests an agreement be made to not review the leases on those billboards, and they can eliminate billboards in town. Dye questioned if this is going to be sold to the City or not. Kipp responded that parcel B is the parcel that the City will purchase. Moeller asked what the duration of the leases are. Hope replied that the lease they are on is a 10 year lease. It will be up in 1996 . He has agreed with Staff to have annual leases from that point on. Moeller questioned what has been done in other instances when leases expire. Kipp responded that they be removed from the property and not rebuilt. He noted that there is a billboard ordinance that controls the use of billboards in town. • 8 Minutes iBoard of Adjustments & Appeals Jnuary 12, 1995 Weeks opened the public hearing. Weeks closed the public hearing. MOTION: Vasaly moved that the Board approve variance request #95-03, the hardship being the request of the City to purchase the property adjacent to the two parcels, but not the two smaller areas, leaving those two smaller parcels that can not meet the Code. Because they will be combined with the parcel belonging to the purchaser of the parcel, they will not have any impact to the Code requirements . Nelson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. E. Request #95-04 by St. Andrew Lutheran Church for 13600 Technology Drive 1) To permit 2 free-standing building identification signs of 32 square feet each. City Code permits 1 free-standing sign per lot of 80 square feet in the Public Zoning District and, 2) To permit 1 off- site directional sign of 16 square feet and one on-site directional sign of 16 square feet. City Code maximum • size for directional signs is 6 square feet. Pastor Rod Anderson, representing St. Andrew Lutheran Church, reviewed his variance request with the Board. He noted that they intend to comply and meet with requirements in the City. Through misunderstanding and oversight, they have failed to correctly comply with the sign ordinance. They want to have a continuity of identity and they simply want to use their old signs from their old church at their new church. They are attractively designed hand-built signs . Durham noted that there was a change in the Sign Code that occurred in 1991, so moving the old sign to the new site creates a problem. The total of both signs does not go over what is allowed. Weeks asked if they have a projected time table to implement phase 3 which is the proposed expansion to the north. Anderson replied that they don't have a particular time yet, but they hope in the not too distant future. Dunham expressed concerns regarding too many signs . Anderson responded that they simply have signs by their driveways, which are allowed in the Code, one for each 9 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals Jnuary 12, 1995 driveway identifying a directional sign. They have two frontages visible and need signage out on that side of the building. He noted that there is a need to have signs by the driveway entrances because they have 900 parking spaces . Vasaly suggested one sign more centrally located and not facing one way or the other, than two signs on Highway 5 both facing the site. Anderson replied that if you centrally locate it, it will end up being put behind the maple trees. Anderson noted that they want people to know it is the same church as at the other site. People recognize the signs from the old church at the new church. The signs are only eight or nine years old and are very usable. The signs are 16 square feet and 33 square feet tall. Moeller asked whose responsibility is it to know the rules and regulations when a permit is granted. Durham responded that people who install the signs know the • City requires permits . In the case of the church, whoever was in charge may not have thought they needed a permit. Anderson noted that he comes to the Board very apologetic. They thought they knew the Code. Nelson questioned whether the two driveway signs of 16 square feet are all that they are requiring. Anderson replied that they don't need any more signage. They don't plan on needing over 32 square feet total. Durham noted that there are two options . One option is to come to this Board for additional directional signs, or revamp all the directional signs to conform to Code. Weeks expressed concern whether there is any kind of precedent in this situation. Durham responded that he would have to research it. Weeks noted that if they had the same number of signs at the old locality, he supports the variance. He also noted that the complex is very attractive. Moeller concurred with Weeks comments . . 10 Minutes iBoard of Adjustments & Appeals Jnuary 12, 1995 Weeks commented that the preservation aspect of the existing landscapes are more important. Vasaly noted that she agrees with Weeks, and finds this most important, that transfer from a previous Eden Prairie site where the signs did meet Code. It is somewhat like a pre-existing condition. Nelson concurred with Vasaly. Dye commented that the signs would look very nice at the new site. Weeks opened the public hearing. Weeks closed the public hearing. MOTION: Nelson moved that the Board approve variance request #95-04, the hardship being the natural topography of the land, the fact that these signs were at the church at another Eden Prairie site. In fact, . the signs do meet the square footage lot, minimum total. Dye seconded the motion and it passed with one opposed by Dunham. E. Request #95-05 by Challenge Printing for 7540 Golden Triangle Drive to permit parking of 13 spaces 25 feet from the front lot line. City Code requires a 50 foot front yard setback. David Bangasser, Opus Corporation, reviewed his variance request with the Board. He noted that the variance they are requesting is for a front yard setback variance from the 50 feet requirement to 25 feet. This was approved by the City Council in 1993 as part of their original plan. The hardship they have with this site, and the difficulties with this site, are the natural features and topography. He feels the variance is justified due to the narrow nature of the usability of the site. The building and parking cannot be shifted further to the west due to the wetland and associated poor soils . There 'is a portion of the recently acquired two acre outlot which is heavily wooded and part of a steep hill which would be difficult to use for parking. It would result in the loss of a large number of oak trees . He noted that the based area ratio being proposed is approximately 25% 11 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals Jnuary 12, 1995 which is already well below the 30% permitted. As proposed by the planning Staff, they feel that additional landscaping screening can be provided to mitigate the impact of this variance. Kipp noted that Challenge Printing is providing additional landscaping to mitigate the encroachment from there. It is quite heavily landscaped. This has been before the Planning Commission and they have recommended approval . Dunham asked if they need the additional parking spaces . Bangasser replied that they need more parking. He noted that their intent is to provide adequate parking and they are adding about 36 additional spaces . Dunham expressed concern about the rules of the street and if they are overflowed on their parking. Kipp replied that unless it's posted, parking on City streets is allowed in Eden Prairie. Based on the design of this building and usage, they are meeting the • parking Code. Vasaly suggested eliminating six of the parking stalls, and that would take care of the problem. She noted that six parking stalls can't be all that crucial, because if they are having such a rate of growth, six parking stalls won't be enough. Bangasser replied that given the rate of growth that Challenge Printing has seen, he feels six parking stalls are crucial. He reviewed the various different shifts, the times, and the amount of people on each shift. Kipp noted that they are at Code right now. They are technically short in terms of actually implementing the parking that they could possibly use. The idea of granting a variance is to provide parking where it can be placed in a safe manner, but in an environmental manner to prevent tree loss. Moeller asked if the variance was granted on this 50 foot variance in front, excluding the proof of parking on the southwest corner, do they meet Code meeting the square footage. Kipp replied that they meet Code. They don't have the total number of paved parking spaces. He noted that there are other sites in town where they approve the number of parking spaces, 12 Minutes • Board of Adjustments & Appeals Jnuary 12, 1995 including proof of parking, to meet the Code. They can not require them to put in the parking if their site does not need the use of all of them. Lynch expressed concern regarding the history of Golden Triangle Drive. Weeks questioned whether there are any plans to install a truck bay on the proposed plans . Bangasser replied that there are no plans for a truck bay. Weeks asked if there is adequate lighting for the night shifts. Bangasser responded that they have designed it for one foot candle. Weeks opened the public hearing. Gerard Wersel, 12645 Sunnybrook Road, expressed concern regarding the need for more space two years from now based on Challenge Printing's rapid growth rate. He noted that this might be a way to give the approval for some future intended requirements as opposed to what's really needed today. Bangasser noted that it's Challenge Printing's feeling that this will take them out for a significant period of time. This site is almost double the square footage that they currently are on. This plan will take them up to 91, 000 square feet. Wersel asked if 40, 000 square feet is the maximum buildable, or would 36, 000 be enough. Bangasser responded that it 's the maximum that they felt was practical on this site. Weeks asked what Mr. Wersel 's affiliation is with Challenge Printing and this site. Wersel replied that he's a resident of Eden Prairie. Weeks closed the public hearing. MOTION: Dunham moved to approve variance request #95- 05 based on the hardship being site conditions to the west. Moeller seconded the motion and it passed with one opposed by Vasaly, and one abstention by Dye. • 13 Minutes • Board of Adjustments & Appeals Jnuary 12, 1995 G. Request #95-06 by Tandem Properties for the intersection of Brentwood Road and Dell Road 1) To permit two metal symbol signs at one street entrance. City Code permits one Area Identification sign per street entrance. 2) To permit each metal symbol sign at 96 square feet and 12 ' in height. City Code permits a maximum sign size of 32 square feet and 6 ' in height. 3) To permit two Area Identification signs entitled "The Big Woods" at 46 square feet and "A Sheltering Historic Forest" at 11.5 square feet at one street entrance. City Code Maximum sign size is 32 square feet and one sign per street entrance. Durham noted that the symbols were 8 ' by 121 , and now they are 6 ' by 121 . It's been reduced from 96 square feet to 72 square feet. Jim Ostenson, Tandem Properties, reviewed his variance request with the Board. They are proposing two sculptures to display on a retaining wall at the entrance to "The Big Woods" project because they wanted to do something special. He noted that these sculptures are designed to convey a sense of arrival to "The Big Woods" , that you are entering some place special. While the height of the sculptures is essential to create this feeling, their dominance is buffeted by the brown color and heavily wooded background. Their problem with the ordinance is that because there are trees there and they are associated with "The Big Woods" , it becomes part of the sign. The lettering on the signs themselves will be attached to the retaining wall saying, "Big Woods" , and underneath to say, "Historical Forest. " They do not have a hardship, but if there is any hardship, it's in the language contained within the ordinance which prevents something like this from being done. He noted that there is a 60% chance that the signs are going to be a little smaller at five feet wide instead of six feet. Durham noted that this is the first request where the City has had a statutory symbol come up for the Board review. Weeks asked how the City Code defines sculpture versus • 14 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals Jnuary 12, 1995 signage. Durham replied that it doesn't distinguish it. Dye questioned whether the City allows mortar, stone, or any elevation or width, to depict a development. Durham responded that you can have it in the form of fencing, and the fence maximum is six feet high. Vasaly expressed concern about from where the 12 feet starts. Durham replied that it's 12 feet from the retaining wall. Nelson commented that the Board does allow various kinds of symbols incorporated into developments. She expressed concern of whether signs in the windows would be allowed or sculptures in the window. Durham replied that signs in windows can not be more than 10% of the window area. Nelson asked if they would be allowed to do small gate houses on either side. Durham responded yes, that they • would have to meet the structure setback. Dunham asked if any consideration was given to just having signs on one side of the entrance. Ostenson replied that they wouldn't have a problem with that. Dunham questioned how big the lettering is . Ostenson replied that it's one foot, 12 inches for "The Big Woods" , and eight inches for the Historical Forest. Dunham commented that the letter size could be reduced to a more residential scale. Also, the height of this sculpture, 12 feet above a four foot retaining wall is very high. Ostenson noted that the ground behind is built up on a berm and the trees are on top of the berms . Therefore, it is probably half-way up the trees . It's not sitting out there all by itself. It's 16 feet from the ground. Dunham expressed concern about an explanation of it being an historical forest for the people that stop and read it. Nelson commented that this can be reduced in scale and still be effective. • 15 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals Jnuary 12, 1995 Ostenson noted that they would loose "The Big Woods" essence if they were reduced. Dye asked if there was any consideration for a see-thru sign that just says "The Big Woods" . He said if they stay within the Code they could get a lot of printing on it. Ostenson commented that if this were not trees, they would not have a problem. Lynch commented that she appreciates what they are trying to do, but is having a hard time trying to find the hardship. Weeks noted that he is more concerned by the location than the structure itself. He would be more comfortable with one and the reason is the fact that they have two on each side. He also noted that the letters can be reduced. • Vasaly commented that it seems to be more advertising. She feels it would be setting a dangerous precedent to call it art. Weeks suggested getting input from the Planning Commission, Arts Commission, and Heritage Preservation Commission. Weeks Suggested a continuance by the Board. No motion for continuance was made by the Board members . Ostenson noted again that if they comprise it too much, you start loosing the effect. To reduce in scale would not have the same effect. Nelson expressed concern about the original dimensions being eight foot wide and 12 foot high, being reduced to five foot wide and 12 foot high. Weeks opened the public hearing. Weeks closed the public hearing. Moeller commented that if they want to maintain the historical significance, that's a different issue to be held by a different body. 16 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals Jnuary 12, 1995 MOTION: Moeller moved that the Board deny variance request #95-06, the reason being by the proponent that there is no hardship by the proponent's own admission. Lynch seconded the motion and it passed with one opposed by Weeks . H. Request #95-07 by Cellular One, Minneapolis, MN for 14615 Lone Oak Road to permit location of Cellular One transmission antennas on the existing Cooperative Power transmission tower which was approved at 70 feet in height, and to permit construction of an equipment shelter building. Ted Olson, property manager of Cellular One, reviewed his variance request with the Board. He noted that in November of 1994, they applied for a request for a variance submitted by the City of Eden Prairie, Cellular One and their competitor, US West. The request was to install a 200 foot high tower to accommodate police radio and cellular radio equipment and antennas . It was brought forward by the City Engineering • Department to the City Manager that the site that they were looking at was unfortunately the same site that the City also was looking at for a new pump house or well house. It was agreed that they drop the negotiations with the City and look elsewhere. They found a friend in Cooperative Power and they granted them permission to locate their antennas on their existing 60 foot monopole. There is an eight foot microwave dish at the existing monopole, and a 14 foot "whip" antenna. They are proposing to install cellular antennas on the existing monopole and constructing an equipment shelter nearby to house the corresponding radio equipment. Durham noted that Staff has reviewed the information submitted and gives support of the variance request. Nelson commented that she has no problem with this but is having a hard time formulating the hardship. Moeller noted that when the PUD was approved in 1976, that they could have put these on at that time. Durham replied that you don't want to approve a project and then months later or years later, someone comes in and does all kinds of different things to a building or a tower. • 17 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals Jnuary 12, 1995 Moeller asked how long a time period did they have to put these on there. Durham responded that there was no time frame on it. Olson noted that back in 1994 a variance was granted, and the hardship was found because of the existing zoning and the lack of industrial zoning areas in this particular geographical location. Dunham expressed concern about seeing the proponent coming back next month wanting to jump on the fact that they were trying to reach an agreement to generally use the previous tower. Olson commented that the agreement was reached long before they appeared before this Board with their competitors to a dual location. He noted that their competitors ' preference from the very beginning was that they be located farther to the west along Highway 5 . The height of this would probably preclude their competitors from coming back and asking them to locate • antennas on this particular pole. Dunham questioned whether they are planning on building at the base of this tower, and if there is vehicle access to it. Olson replied that they are building at the base, and there is vehicle access . Moeller asked if a structural analysis has been made. Olson responded that there has been. Moeller questioned whether restoration of the area that they have will be returned to it's existing state. Olson replied that it will be, and that it's part of the agreement that they have with Cooperative Power. Weeks asked what the anticipated construction time is . Olson responded 30 to 60 days . Weeks opened the public hearing. Weeks closed the public hearing. MOTION: Dunham moved to approve variance request #95- 07 for antennas on the existing tower, and the building, the hardship being the lack of coverage for new technology. Vasaly seconded the motion and it • 18 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals Jnuary 12, 1995 passed unanimously. IV. OLD BUSINESS None. V. NEW BUSINESS Format for 1995 A. Reports Durham noted that there are no variance requests for the month of February. He questioned whether or not his reports are appropriate for the Board. Vasaly noted that they have been very good and helpful. B. Recommendations Vasaly recommended Staff providing the Board with • additional information in the form of background information on ordinances . Durham stated that all of their variances are on computer from 1983 . Dunham noted that it would be nice to know what some of the originating reasons are for the ordinances . Durham suggested having a newsletter about the site to help the Board. Lynch noted that she still wants Staff to give recommendations . VI . ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Dye moved that the Board adjourn. Vasaly seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11 : 15 P.M. • 19