Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - DECEMBER 11,2000 <br /> <br />['.~"". P'~, fi."'.... ~.....~. T <br />.J'!--", J'" "'" <br />.., t..~. .......,..,;::. <br />.- "'\<" "" <br /> <br />7 <br /> <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 /> <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 /> <br />Mr. Filla stated his agreement 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 /> <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 from Limited Industrial or <br />Light Industrial to Gateway and some from 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 /> <br />Mayor Probst asked 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 /> <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 ifthe 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 /> <br />Mr. Filla stated the City could also conclude, based on the Building Inspector's comments and <br />engineering studies dealing with this tower, that the tower is a public safety hazard. Then the <br />City would conclude the tower fails to comply with State building requirements and is a danger <br />in some manner to public health, safety, and welfare. However, that would require a different <br />process. <br /> <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 />