CC 10-12-1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Minutes of the Regular Council Meetini, October 12, 1987 Page 3 CASE #87-28 (Cont'd) Lynden further advised that Section VII.D. of the Zoning Code gives the Zoning Administrator the latitude to determine whether or not the changes may be deemed insignificant and requirements of a public hearing may be waived. in the event of structural alterations or changes not specifically permitted by the SUP. He recommended to . Kabnke's attorney that it would be helpful for him to secure written consents from residents in the area, especially the adjacent neighbors. Council was referred to the diagram which showed the location of the antenna and the design, as indicated in the materials attached to Lynden's letter of 10-7-87. . Councilmembers Hansen and Peck stated they saw no problem with the amended proposal; Hansen preferred the antenna closer to the Kahnke's residence. Councilmember Winiecki supported referral of this matter back to the Planning Commission for another public hearing, it was her opinion that the proposal is entirely different from what was approved. Mayor Woodburn agreed. Joseph Kahnke, 1541 Edgewater, was present and reviewed his reasons for amending his request; he presented Council with signatures from several neighbors stating they are not opposed to the antenna snd location as amended. Planner Miller pointed out that the proposed changes in the antenna and location would not be detrimental to adjacent neighbors and may, in his opinion, be aesthetically beneficial as compared to the original plan. . After diSCUSSion, Council concurred to defer determination of the significance of the amended proposal and the necessity for another public hearing to the Zoning Administrator. Mayor Woodburn advised Kahnke that he would be contacted by the Zoning Administrator, within the next few days. ARMY RESV. TRAINING Council was referred to letter from RSP Architects, CNTR; JURISDICTION 10-7-87, requesting clarification of Arden Hills position relative to enforcement of local codes and ordinances on this federal project at the Twin Cities Arsenal. The Clerk Administrator advised that she had discussed the matter with the architectural firm and the Planner had briefly reviewed the building plans. Council asked the Attorney for an opinion relative to jurisdiction on federal property. Lynden stated that it was his opinion the City does not have much jurisdiction over a federal agency. Council questioned if rezoning would be an issue; Lynden advised that it was . his recollection federal agencies do not adhere to zoning requirements, however, State agencies must. Lynden stated that in the past the County was required to make application for special pse permit. Council commented that the training facilitiy would be a State agency. Planner Miller noted that Shoreline Management District is not in effect, through the DNR; this may be a State mandated shoreline district. Miller had contacted the DNR for their interpretation and, to date, had received no response. He adVised he could pursue the matter for clarification and interpretation of jurisdiction. Council concurred. After discussion, Council requested the Attorney research and give an opinion on the following items: 1. Rezoning necessary; due to the fact that the training facility is under State agency. 2. Clarification of Arden Hills jurisdiction on the property. Council also requested the Attorney or appropriate staff direct a letter to the architectural firm and advise that the City is pursuing a legal opinion relative to jurisdiction and include the following Council concerns: . A. Council preferred no access onto Highway 96. B. Council requested adherence to building code requirements, and standards outlined in the Arden Hills Zoning Code. C. Council requested upgrading the appearance of the premises along the south side of the facility, adjacent to Highway 96. D. Council requested they provide the City with an estimated water useage for the facility, to determine the City's capability for providing services.