Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Oouncllmembe r <br />findings of fact~ <br /> <br />made the motion to adopt the following <br /> <br />~)K)SfD ~INDIN~S OF FAC~ O0 <br /> <br />1. That the Applicant, KTWN-FM Inc., has properly applied for a <br />Board of Adjustment variance to construct a radio tower taller <br /> <br />2. That the Applicant appeared before the Board of Adjustment for a <br />public hearing on June 25, 1985 and that said public hearing <br />was properly advertised and that the minutes of said public <br />hearing are hereby incorporated as a part of these findings by <br />reference. <br /> <br />3. That the subject property is legally described as: <br /> <br />The Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 8, <br />Township 32, Range 25, Anoka Cbunty, Minnesota; <br /> <br />and is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of <br />Armstrong Boulevard N.W. and 173rd Avenue N.W. <br /> <br />4. That the subject property is located in an R-1 Residential <br />District. <br /> <br />5. That the subject property is approximately ~ acres in size. <br /> <br />6. That the Applicant's request is to construct a 1,000 foot <br />high radio tower. <br /> <br />7. That the City Code restricts the height of all structures to <br />35 feet. <br /> <br />8. That the City Code states that the zoning officer may <br />authorize a variance to the height regulations in any district if <br />the structure is a radio tower. <br /> <br />~9. That the Applicant is proposing to adequately anchor the <br /> proposed radio tower. <br /> <br />10. That there are exceptional, unique or extraordinary <br />circumstances or oonditions applying to the property in question <br />as to the intended use of the property that do not apply <br />generally to other properties in the same zoning district <br />due to the physical shape of the subject parcel. <br /> <br />11. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and <br />enjoyment of a substantial property right similar to that <br />possessed by other properties in the same district and in the <br />same vicinity. The possibility of increased financial return <br />shall not in itselfbe~cmedsufficienttowarrant a variance. <br /> <br /> <br />