CCP 07-16-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.. Memo to Mayor and City Council Regarding: Arden Tower June 6, 2001 Page 2 of2 . . e reconstruction of tower while considering approval ofredevelopment of the property. The decisions need to be consistent with one another. Denial of the concept plan approval does not resolve the situation, however. Mr. Vaughn will continue to have a tower which does not teclmically meet the State Building Standards and remains under staffs experience knowledge unsafe from a structure standpoint. I believe that Mr. Vaughn is trying to seek all the administrative remedies he has at his disposal for consideration of the reconstruction of the telecommunications tower. He has made application for building permit which has been denied by the City Council. He has now made application for a redevelopment proposal ofthis property which includes the reconstruction ofthe telecommunications tower. It should be recommended for denial by the Planning Commission and support by the City Council. Upon receipt of negative feedba_ck on the concept approval we assume Mr. Vaughn will seek remedy through non-conforming rights language in the zoning ordinance. Staff has talked about the possibility about bringing forward a recommendation to the City Council for "red tagging" the structure. This would not be wise at this time due to the fact that the condemnation of such a structure would mean possible large financial reward for the property owner based upon the replacement value ofthe telecommunications structure both from an infrastructure standpoint and an income standpoint. However, based upon the fact that Mr. Vaughn has brought forward a proposal for redevelopment of the property we will be coming to a conjunction point where the City Council needs to consider what action it is willing to take on this property. The options for the Council are: 1) Amendment to the current zoning ordinance to allow telecommunications towers to be built in the Gateway Business District and including language to allow Mr. Vaughn to rebuild his tower with or without any accompanying principle structures; 2) To deny the development proposal by Mr. Vaughn to see ifhe seeks remedy through non-conforming use issues contained within the zoning ordinance; 3) Allow Mr. Vaughn to complete a preliminary and final development plan which would allow reconstruction of his telecommunications tower; 4) Seek staff to have Mr. Vaughn remove the telecommunications tower at the property with allowance of development of the property in conjunction with the current provisions of the Gateway Business Zoning District. . Recommendations The staff recommends that the City Council consider and discuss the options proposed here and any others that are brought up during conversation, or modifications thereof. This is a separate and distinct item from the concept plan approval that will be brought forward to the City Council at your regularly scheduled meeting on June 25,2001. It is the intention to continue discussion and ifthere is need for more information bring this issue back to your work session on June 18, 2001. Mr. Filla will be in attendance at the meeting on June 11, 2001, for clarification or reference. Mr. Scherbel will also be in attendance at the June 18,2001, City Council work session if you have any questions of him or need more background or information. .