CCP 08-14-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - July 31, 2000 L. ',. "'- ~ 7 . . Councilmember Larson stated the recommendations of the Planning Commission to deny the request is based on the fact that it is a nonconforming use, and as such the City should not allow an expansion of a nonconforming use, Mr. Filla stated it could be argued that no expansion of any kind is permitted on a nonconforming use, and part of the tower should come down, He noted that adding antennas to towers when no height is added to the tower is not considered expansion of a nonconforming use, Councilmember Grant stated the Council would be basing a decision on lack of information, He added that it has not been confirmed that the tower is actually 265 feet in height. He noted that page five ofthe staff memo shows the tower height to be 235 feet. He asked whether staff has confirmed the height of the tower, Ms, Chaput stated that staff was referring to the application which shows 265 feet. Mr. Filla stated that if the application is to expand the tower trom 235 feet to 265 feet, that is a physical expansion of a nonconforming use and would not be allowed, Mr. Reiling asked for clarification. Mr, Filla stated that nonconforming uses should find a graceful termination, He added that if the City allows nonconforming uses to perpetuate themselves, regulations will never be enforced. Mayor Probst stated that he would wish to proceed with the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the request, adding the applicant can pursue the issue if they wish. . Councilmember Rem asked whether contact had been made with the applicant. Ms, Chaput stated that she spoke with a representative of the applicant prior to the Planning Commission meeting at which the issue was discussed. Staff was told that there would be representation at the Planning Commission meeting although the person failed to appear. Councilmember Rem asked whether the City would have some liability if the tower were not originally constructed to tolerate the additional height. Mr. Filla stated it is a possibility, adding he is not familiar with the facts in this case. Mr. Filla stated the record should show that the City was inclined to take more time to review the case, that the applicant was umesponsive to the City's inquiries, and consequently a decision was made based upon these circumstances, MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to deny Planning Case #00-27, amendment to the Special Use Permit for 1296 County Road F, to allow for installation of one antenna onto the existing tower and the installation of a new supporting platform on the ground, for the following reasons: 1. The physical enlargement of an existing nonconforming use by an additional antenna is not permitted by Section IX (D) of the City's Zoning Ordinance; .