Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - DECEMBER II, 2000 <br /> <br /> <br />p"',."' T <br />.~ <br />cl <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />look at the conforming and nonconforming uses and determine if the tower can or cannot be <br />constructed. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Mr. Filla stated the legal issues with these scenarios are complicated and the property owner does <br />not share staffs interpretation of which regulations would apply in those situations. However, <br />the applicant agrees tonight that the Building Official properly applied the code in denying the <br />building permit application. <br /> <br />Mr. Bannigan stated he had asked the Planning Commission to table the matter until they could <br />bring in their own plan. However, he realizes certain aspects need finality but, in his view, to <br />delay and consider the site plan development and land use application at the same time as <br />considering the tower and other aspects would be appropriate. However, the Planning <br />Commission did not concur with that method. Mr. Bannigan stated he would support delaying <br />and keeping both to run concurrently. He stated they would also have to continue to renew the <br />60-day reviewal extension. Mr. Bannigan stated irrespective of Council action tonight, they will <br />be presenting their plan but would prefer not denying the appeal. <br /> <br />Councilmember Larson asked why they do not withdraw the appeal. <br /> <br />Mr. Bannigan stated this has been with staff since February and if he were to have processed it, <br />he would have recommended it be taken from the table. However, there does need to be some <br />finality. He stated he is not interested, at this point, in removing it from the table. <br /> <br />Councilmember Larson noted that City never reached a conclusion the tower was unsafe to e <br />continue and nothing prevents the applicant from continuing operation but the applicant would <br />be prohibited from adding to the tower or increasing revenue. <br /> <br />Mr. Bannigan stated that is correct. <br /> <br />Councilmember Larson stated the only argument is if the Council were to move to find the tower <br />represents some type of health and safety issue and takes action on that point. <br /> <br />Mr. Bannigan reviewed the past consideration on the compliance and load issues, and change in <br />the Code. He stated his agreement with Mr. Filla that this is not an easy legal consideration. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst reviewed that a year ago is not the first time the issue of the structure surfaced. He <br />stated there was something several years ago that triggered, in part, the same discussion. Mr. <br />Bannigan stated that is correct, it was discussed about three years ago. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst reviewed the issues that had been discussed and determination that the antenna <br />may have been constructed beyond the approved height. Mr. Bannigan stated the initial lease <br />was with Motorola and went from 3 to 25 antenna by the end of the lease. Then Mr. Vaughan <br />reduced the net number to 20. <br /> <br />Mr. Bannigan stated the issues related to the land use will be returned at a later date. <br /> <br />. <br />