Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. Arden Hills Counci 1 9 March 8, 1993 <br /> granted. Such plans are to ue approved and <br /> submitted with appropriate bonding prior to <br /> issuance of building permits. Any trees <br /> planted which do not survive must be <br /> replaced; <br /> C) That Rice Creek watershed District review and <br /> approve the site grading and drainage plans <br /> and, if needed, a permit from RCWD be <br /> obtained prior to construction; <br /> D) That the Landscape Plan submitted for the <br /> tennis court area be amended to include two <br /> rows of deciduous trees planted along the <br /> County Road F fenceline, to lessen the visual <br /> impact of the windscreen; <br /> E) That near the tennis courts it is recommended <br /> that bike parking be provided; <br /> F) That the applicant submit an overall campus <br /> lighting plan which is consistent with City <br /> ordinance. <br /> Motion carried unanimously (5-0). <br /> CASE 93-04 SPECIAL USE PERMIT <br />. AMENDMENT - VAUGHN TOWER <br /> planner Bergly explained that this case involves a request <br /> for a Special Use Permit Amendment to install three sets of <br /> four antennae to the 100-foot and 175-foot points on the <br /> 700-foot Vaughn Tower, located in the Gateway Business <br /> District, place a 12' X 30' modular building at the base of <br /> the tower, and erect a chain link security fence around the <br /> building. <br /> Bergly stated that under the new zoning regulations, the <br /> Gateway Business District has prohibited uses and permitted <br /> uses, allowing antennae only as a special accessory use, not <br /> as a princi pa I use. He further reported that the City <br /> Attorney has opined that since the Gateway Business District <br /> does not now allow towers, the Vaughn tower is now a <br /> nonconforming use: and although pre-existing nonconforming <br /> uses are allowed to continue, they are not allowed to be <br /> enlarged or intensified; therefore, approval of this case <br /> would be in conflict with the regulations. <br /> Bergly added that the Planning Commission reviewed this <br /> case, conducted a public hearing, and recommended denial on <br /> the basis that approval would constitute expansion of a <br /> nonconforming use in the Gateway Business District. He <br /> added that attorr:.eys for U.S.West have a differing <br />. interpretation and a difference of opinion on this matter. <br /> Jaymes Littlejohn, attorney representing the applicant, <br /> appeared before Council stating that there is a debate as to <br /> ----- ----- <br />