CCP 07-31-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 5, 2000 3 e Commissioner Duchenes asked whether an altemative exists for the applicant. She stated, in her opinion, that construction of another tower would not be acceptable, adding that factor would weigh in her decision. Commissioner Baker stated, according to photos included in staffs memo, there appears to be two or three existing antennas on the tower. He asked why these antennas were installed without going through the building permit process. Ms. Chaput stated the owner should have applied for permits for these antennas, adding that she was unaware of planning cases relating to these antennas so approval may not have been given. Commissioner Baker stated that the tower is taller than specified in the original permit, and illegal improvements have been completed since the tower's construction. He expressed concem that the applicant is now requesting an amendment. Acting Chair Rye asked whether an addition, which adds to the breadth of a structure, requires the same approval as one which adds to the height. Ms. Chaput stated that the enlargement of any non-conforming structure is not permitted. Acting Chair Rye stated that it might be necessary to acknowledge that the height ofthe tower is greater than what was originally approved. Ms. Chaput stated it is unclear which applicant may be at fault, and since it is not documented, it would be difficult to enforce. Acting Chair Rye asked whether the other additions should be addressed. Ms. Chaput stated that would be appropriate, but stressed the lack of documentation as to when or how the other additions occurred. Commissioner Nelson asked for clarification with regard to the property owner. Ms. Chaput stated the property owner is George Reiling, and the applicant is A.L.B.S. Construction, based in Illinois. The property owner was notified of the application. Acting Chair Rye asked whether it might be possible to approve the request without increasing the intensity of the non-conformity. Ms. Chaput stated this would not be possible, unless the non-conforming section of the City Code was interpreted differently. Conunissioner Nelson expressed his opposition to the request as the height exceeds the original submittal and current antennas are illegally mounted, adding that such discrepancies should be addressed before approving part of a non-conforming use.. He requested that the property owner be notified of the Commission's actions in this case. Conunissioner Baker stated that since the original SUP required written approval from the property owner as part of the application, it would be appropriate to require such written notice from the property owner. Commissioner Galatowitsch stated the towers in the City are unsightly and action should be taken by the City to prevent such non-conformities as those represented in this case. The Conunission expressed agreement. Commissioner Baker moved, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to recommend denial of planning Case #00-27, Special Use Permit Amendment for A.L.B.S., 1296 County Road F based on the fact that the additional antenna would be an addition to a e e