Laserfiche WebLink
<br />A.den Hills Council <br /> <br />9 <br /> <br />Ma.ch 8, 1993 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />g.anted. Such plans a.e to be app.oved and <br />submitted with app.op.iate bonding p.io. to <br />issuance of building pe.mits. Any t.ees <br />planted which do not su.vive must be <br />.eplaced; <br />C) That Rice C.eek wate.shed Dist.ict .eview and <br />app.ove the site g.ading and d.ainage plans <br />and, if needed, a pe.mit f.om RCWD be <br />obtained p.io. to const.uction; <br />D) That the Landscape Plan submitted fo. the <br />tennis cou.t a.ea be amended to include two <br />.ows of deciduous t.ees planted along the <br />County Road F fenceline, to lessen the visual <br />impact of the windsc.een; <br />E) That nea. the tennis cou.ts it is .ecommended <br />that bike pa.king be p.ovided; <br />F) That the applicant submit an ove.all campus <br />lighting plan which is consistent with City <br />o.dinance. <br />Motion ca..ied unanimously (5-0). <br /> <br />CASE 93-04 SPECIAL USE PERMIT <br />AMENDMENT - VAUGHN TOWER <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Planne. Be.gly explained that this case involves a .equest <br />for a Special Use Permit Amendment to install th.ee sets of <br />four antennae to the 100-foot and 175-foot points on the <br />700-foot Vaughn Towe., 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 secu.ity fence around the <br />building. <br /> <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 principal use. He fu.ther 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 />nonconfo.ming use: and although pre-existing nonconfo.ming <br />uses are allowed to continue, they a.e not allowed to be <br />enla.ged o. intensified; the.efo.e, app.oval of this case <br />would be in conflict with the regulations. <br /> <br />Be.gly added that the Planning Commission .eviewed this <br />case, conducted a public hearing, and .ecommended denial on <br />the basis that app.oval would constitute expansion of a <br />nonconfo.ming use in the Gateway Business Dist.ict. He <br />added that atto.neys fo. U.S.West have a diffe.ing <br />inte.p.etation and a diffe.ence of opinion on this matte.. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Jaymes LittleJohn, atto.ney .ep.esenting the applicant, <br />appea.ed befo.e Council stating that the.e is a debate as to <br />