Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - DECEMBER II, 2000 7 <br /> Mayor Probst asked if the Council is under the same limitations on timing of approvals and <br /> . denials as relates to other planning actions. <br /> Mr. Filla stated the City has continued this process a number of times at the request, written or <br /> verbal, of the property owner. He stated the timing of the review process is covered by State <br /> regulations which indicate 90 to 120 days with an extension at the consent of the property owner. <br /> Mr. Filla stated his agrcement with the Building Official's finding and Planning Commission <br /> recommendation. He stated the City has a process to review development applications, text <br /> amendments, and rezonings if that is requested. All of them require application and reviews by <br /> the Planning Commission at public hearings. Mr. Filla stated his agreement with Mr. Bannigan <br /> that the Building Official acted properly and the other matters, while important, will be dealt <br /> with at some point in the future when Mr. Vaughan can make a more thorough presentation. <br /> Mr. Filla stated that in 1981, towers were a use consistent with the City's regulations and <br /> allowed via a SUP. At that time, it was not realized that the design should have been to a higher <br /> standard so the tower has never complied with the State building code, The City then changed <br /> its regulations in 1990 by adopting the Gateway Business regulations and rezoned this property <br /> and other property within the Gateway area. Some were rezoned trom Limited Industrial or <br /> Light Industrial to Gateway and some trom Residential to Gateway. In 1990, the tower use <br /> continued to be allowed in the Gateway zone by SUP. It became a nonconforming use in 1993 <br /> when the City adopted regulations to limit the size of towers or towers as a principal use, Mr. <br /> . Filla stated all of those regulations apply to the repair or replacement of the nonconforming <br /> tower. <br /> Mayor Probst askcd if denial of the appeal would prohibit rebuilding the tower. Mr. Filla stated <br /> it would be difficult to reconstruct a tower in the Gateway zone without a legislative change. <br /> Mayor Probst asked if the design parameters compared with what is required today and how that <br /> comes into place as it relates to the denial. Mr, Filla stated if the City accepts the <br /> recommendation of the Planning Commission and affirms the decision of the Building Official, <br /> that does not mean the tower will come down. He explained that additional actions would be <br /> needed, based on additional investigation that the tower is being operated in manner inconsistent <br /> with the SUP. If that is concluded, then a public hearing to rescind the SUP would be held. Mr. <br /> Filla explained that the next logical step would then be to tell the property owner to take the <br /> tower down. <br /> Mr. Filla stated the City could also conclude, based on the Building Inspector's comments and <br /> engineering stndies dcaling with this tower, that the tower is a public safety hazard. Then the <br /> City would concludc the tower fails to comply with State bnilding requirements and is a danger <br /> in some manner to public health, safety, and welfare. However, that would require a different <br /> process. <br /> . Mr. Filla stated the third possibility is if an ice storm were to occur and the weight of the ice <br /> caused the tower to collapse. He explained that, at that point, he would encourage the City to <br />