Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />2. ihat the Applicant appeared before the Board of Adjusbnent for a public <br />hearing on June 25, 1985 and that said public hearing was pro~rly advertised <br />and that the minutes of said public hearing are here~ incor};x>rated as a part <br />of these findings ~ reference. <br /> <br />3. ihat the subj ect property is legally described as: <br /> <br />'!he Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 8, <br />Township 32, Range 25, Anoka County, Mirmesota; and is located <br />on the southeast oorner of the intersection of Armstrong Blvd. <br />N.W. and 173rd Avenue !\M. <br /> <br />4. '!hat the subject property is located in an R-l Residential District. <br /> <br />5. ihat the subject property is approximately 30 acres in size. <br /> <br />6. 'Ihat the Applicant's request is to construct a 1,000 foot high radio tower. <br /> <br />7. 'Ihat the City Code restricts the height of all structures to 35 feet. <br /> <br />8. ihat the City Code states that the zoning officer may authorize a variance <br />to the height regulations in any district if the structure is a radio tCMer. <br /> <br />9. ihat the Applicant is proposing to adequately anchor the proposed radio <br />tCMer. <br /> <br />10. ihat the Applicant has stated that there will be no additional tCMers on <br />the subject premises. <br /> <br />11. ihat the tCMer would require EM approval prior to oonstruction. <br /> <br />12. ihat the subject property is not of sufficient size such that were the <br />twoer to oollapse, it would not necessarily fall all on the applicant's <br />property. <br /> <br />13. ihat the proposed variance use Cbes not comply with the City's <br />Canprehensive Plan as Council finds the tower as a commercial ty~ use. <br /> <br />14. FCC regulates transnission interference. <br /> <br />15. ihat there are no exceptional, unique or extraordinary circumstances or <br />oonditions applying to the property in question as to the intended use of the <br />property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning <br />district due to the IbYsical shape of the subject parcel. <br /> <br />16. ihat such variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of <br />a substantial property right similar to that possessed ~ other properties in <br />the same district and in the same vicinity. ihe possibility of increased <br />financial return shall not in itself be deemed sufficient to warrant a <br />variance. <br /> <br />17. ihat the authorizing of such variance will be a detriment to adjacent <br />June 25, 1985 <br /> <br />Page 3 of 6 <br />