08/07/1990 - City Council SpecialMINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
Eagan, Minnesota
August 7, 1990
00284
A meeting of the City of Eagan's Board of Adjustments and Appeals was held on August 7, 1990.
Those attending were Mayor Egan, Councilmembers Gustafson, McCrea, Pawlenty, and Wachter, City
Administrator Thomas Hedges and City Attorney James Sheldon.
Mayor Egan introduced the item as an appeal of the City Council's decision to deny a variance
requested by Minnesota Public Radio. The variance would have been to the height limitations placed on
radio antennae. A variance is necessary to exceed 100' of tower.
City Administrator Hedges said at the April 3, 1990, City Council meeting, the City Council
reviewed MPR's application, the applicant made a presentation, public testimony was taken and the Council
voted to deny the application for a variance and conditional use permit for that location. MPR has decided
to appeal that decision and is pursuing regulations within the City Code that provide for a Board of
Appeals and Adjustments. Mr. Hedges said the Board of Appeals and Adjustments is made up of the City
Council and it was the first time, to his knowledge, that the Board had been convened.
Having presented a brief history, Mr. Hedges said it would then be appropriate for the Council to
take one of two actions: 1) ask for resident input and 2) deliberation toward a decision by the Board of
Adjustment and Appeals.
Mayor Egan said it was appropriate to reflect the fact that the issue before the Board had been on
agendas for regularly scheduled Advisory Planning Commission meetings and City Council meetings from
approximately August 1989 through April 1990. He went on to say the Council had received a great deal
of information and testimony on the issue. Mayor Egan recommended that any further testimony be kept
to a minimum based upon the very thorough amount of information that had already been received on the
issue.
Councilmember Pawlenty then asked a procedural question of the City Attorney. He said he
believed the action that was being appealed was the result of a 3 -2 vote to deny the application for the
towers. Mr. Sheldon said the techinical action that was being appealed, even though there was a conditional
use permit and a variance, was the action taken on the variance and it was that issue that was before the
City Council sitting as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Councilmember Pawlenty said that in terms
of being consistent, he had voted against the motion to deny on the grounds of wanting to explore some
other options and he was aware of other options in the works. He said Mr. Sheldon had advised the
Council not to consider the other options and the Councilmember said he was not; however, he added it
did not necessarily have to be decided on the same grounds or the different standards as outlined for
purposes of the appeal or State standards that they were operating under. He asked if procedurally or
substantively, this could be a different vote. City Attorney Sheldon said it could.
Christina Stalker said the issue had been thoroughly presented and discussed and she had nothing
further. Councilmember Pawlenty asked why the MPR was pursuing this extraordinary step in the process.
Ms. Stalker said they were pursuing what they believed to be required to be done to exhaust MPR's
administrative remedies in the event MPR decided to pursue the Peterson site in court. She said they
believed that the applications, concessions and agreements that MPR made fulfilled all the City's
requirements with the exception of newly imposed ones with which they disagree. In order to pursue the
Peterson property should that become necessary, and she hoped that it would not, Ms. Stalker said they
believe they have to follow procedures in the City Code and State statutes.
Page 2/BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
August 7, 1990
Given that understanding, Gustafson moved, Wachter seconded, a motion to deny the appeal
requesting reconsideration, as presented by Minnesota Public Radio.
Mayor Egan said, for the record, that the basis for appeal from a variance had to be an undue
hardship, which included: 1) that the property could not be put to reasonable use if used under the
conditions allowed by the official controls. Mayor Egan said there had been no change in that regard as
it was only a variance to the height of the tower, not any zoning or official control. 2) That the plight of
the landlord was due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landlord. Again, the
Mayor said he did not think that applied to variances. 3) That it would not alter the essential character
of the locality, and Mayor Egan disagreed that it would not. He added that the City Council would have
to "wear blinders" to the fact that there is a pending application that is not relevent to this issue but Mayor
Egan said he was a recipient of the letter that requested that the matter be placed on the agenda. As a
recipient, Mayor Egan said he had to recognize that one of the basis for the appeal was that this is the sole
and singular place in the City where these towers can go. Mayor Egan said it was his understanding, with
no reference whatsoever to any other applications pending before the City of Eagan, that there are two
other sites that are optional and under consideration for the towers. He said he did not feel that the basis
for the appeal had any merit.
Aye: 3 Nay: 2 (McCrea Pawlenty)
CITY OF EAGAN
E J. nOverbeke, City Clerk
0G285
IMF