Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - DECEMBER II, 2000 <br /> <br />[r~2i, F'~ ll~ r: ~r <br />,j. ~ ,_ t~~'t ~ ~ <br /> <br />9 <br /> <br />Mr. Vaughan, applicant, explained that until this recent incident with Quest, he was unaware the <br />tower had to conform to the one-half inch ice standard. He stated when ever there was a change <br />in the array of the towers, he had an engineering study conducted to determine whether it was <br />safe. As a result, he has declined an array of users to go on the tower. He stated this is his living <br />and no one is more concerned with safety than is he. Now that he has learned that the law was <br />changed, he researched when the law was changed and learned it was prior to the time the tower <br />was constructed, meaning the City and his engineers missed that new regulation. Now, to correct <br />the problem, they are willing to reconstruct the tower at his expense. Mr. Vaughan stated he <br />respects the City Building Official and has always tried to be a good citizen of Arden Hills. He <br />stated he wants to address his plight and assured the Council they want the tower to be safe. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst noted the action proposed is a review ofthe denial by the Building Official. He <br />noted the staff and Planning Commission recommendation is well documented to affirm the <br />denial. <br /> <br />Mr. Filla explained that tabling consideration does not gain anything for either party. He stated <br />if a decision is made tonight, this part is resolved. If they want to apply for some type of a use, <br />once approval is given for the use to be constructed, the next logical step is to make application <br />for a building permit. Mr. Filla stated that could only happen if the Council ultimately decides to <br />change the regulations. <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski noted that things have changed over the last ten years no matter <br />what the business is, and it behooves the business person to be aware of those changes. <br />Councilmember Aplikowski stated she finds it difficult to believe they had no knowledge of the <br />change in regulations. She stated she knows there have been discussions on road and land issues <br />in the past. Councilmember Aplikowski stated she does not want to tell any business that they <br />cannot remain in business. But, at the same time, she does not want to consider a new tower <br />since they are no longer allowed in the Gateway District. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst stated his support to affirm the denial as recommended by staff. He noted Mr. <br />Bannigan has stated he agrees with the logic used by the Building Official in his denial so it <br />would seem appropriate to close this "chapter" and move onto the next one. <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant stated if the Council does not affirm the denial, it does not change that <br />denial. <br /> <br />Mr. Filla explained the request of the property owner is to postpone this decision so it can be <br />considered concurrent with a development action. However, he believes that would complicate <br />future considerations. Mr. Filla reiterated that by affirming staff s recommendation, it does not <br />require the tower owner to remove that tower. Mr. Filla again reviewed the possible future <br />scenarios the Council may consider. <br /> <br />Councilmember Larson stated his support to affirm the decision of the Building Official, noting <br />that once it is done, three events could occur. He reviewed those three events and stated his <br />support to take action on the appeal tonight. <br />