CC 05-09-1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . .. . . . . . . .e . . . . . . . .e . Arden Hills Council 4 May 9, ~994 MOTION: Malone moved, seconded by Probst to inform the National Guard that the City of Arden Hills is willing to participate in a cost sharing agreement with them to install a sewer connection at Highway 96 and Hamline Avenue, contingent upon the ability of the City to share in a combined maintenance facility on this property. In addition, in the absence of not being able to obtain the shared maintenance facility, the National Guard would become the full user of the utilities, and would be assessed per City assessment policy the total cost of the utilities. Motion carried unanimously (5-0). CELLULAR ONE ANTENNA CHANGE REOUEST Community Planning Coordinator Fritsinger noted that the staff was requesting clarification as to the direction the staff should take to address the request from the applicant to make changes to their existing antenna located on the City's water tower. Cellular One had submitted a proposal to replace the existing antenna with an eleven foot two inch (~~'2n) antenna. In reviewing the file, it was noted that the SUP process had not previously taken place. A lease agreement which included the terms for construction and placement of the antenna was negotiated with the City. In reviewing the ordinance, it was clear that an SUP was needed. The City Attorney did clarify that this would be the correct procedure to follow. The applicant had identified a willingness to pursue the SUP process, however, there are some time constraints in meeting the deadline in replacing the antenna. Malone commented that in order to properly handle the request, he agreed that the SUP process was appropriate. He further noted that the City had a lease agreement with the applicant which allows them use of the tower for which the City receives income. In addition, the lease agreement allows the applicant to make changes to the antenna located on the tower. Malone would like to find a way to authorize the applicant to proceed with the lease hold improvements while pursuing the Special Use Permit process. He further noted that the applicant did make a request to the City for these changes on March 30, ~994. This application could have been placed as an agenda item at the May Planning Commission meeting.