Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Memo to Mayor and City Council <br />Regarding: Arden Tower <br />June 6, 2001 <br />Page 2 of2 <br /> <br />e" <br />-....) <br /> <br />reconstruction of tower while considering approval of redevelopment of the property. The <br />decisions need to be consistent with one another. <br /> <br />Denial of the concept plan approval does not resolve the situation, however. Mr. Vaughn will <br />continue to have a tower which does not technically meet the State Building Standards and <br />remains under staff's experience knowledge unsafe from a structure standpoint. I believe that <br />Mr. Vaughn is trying to seek all the administrative remedies he has at his disposal for <br />consideration of the reconstruction ofthe telecommunications tower. He has made application <br />for building permit which has been denied by the City Council. He has now made application <br />for a redevelopment proposal of this property which includes the reconstruction of the <br />telecommunications tower. It should be recommended for denial by the Planning Commission <br />and support by the City CouncIl. Upon receipt of negative feedb~(;k on the concept approval we <br />assume Mr. Vaughn will seek remedy through non-conforming rights language in the zoning <br />ordinance. <br /> <br />Staff has talked about the possibility about bringing forward a recommendation to the City <br />Council for "red tagging" the structure. This would not be wise at this time due to the fact that <br />the condemnation of such a structure would mean possible large financial reward for the property ... <br />owner based upon the replacement value of the telecommunications structure both from an .. <br />infrastructure standpoint and an income standpoint. However, based upon the fact that Mr. :..; <br />Vaughn has brought forward a proposal for redevelopment of the property we will be corning to <br />a conjunction point where the City Council needs to consider what action it is willing to take on <br />this property. The options for the Council are: 1) Amendment to the current z9ning ordinance to <br />allow telecommunications towers to be built in the Gateway Business District and including <br />language to allow Mr. Vaughn to rebuild his tower with or without any accompanying principle <br />structures; 2) To deny the development proposal by Mr. Vaughn to see ifhe seeks remedy <br />through non-conforming use issues contained within the zoning ordinance; 3) Allow Mr. Vaughn <br />to complete a preliminary and final development plan which would allow reconstruction of his <br />telecommunications tower; 4) Seek staff to have Mr. Vaughn remove the telecommunications <br />tower at the property with allowance of development ofthe property in conjunction with the <br />current provisions of the Gateway Business Zoning District. <br /> <br />Recommendations <br />The staff recommends that the City Council consider and discuss the options proposed here and <br />any others that are brought up during conversation, or modifications thereof. This is a separate <br />and distinct item from the concept plan approval that will be brought forward to the City Council <br />at your regularly scheduled meeting on June 25, 2001. It is the intention to continue discussion <br />and if there is need for more information bring this issue back to your work session on June 18, <br />2001. Mr. Filla will be in attendance at the meeting on June 11,2001, for clarification or <br />reference. Mr. Scherbel will also be in attendance at the June 18,2001, City Council work <br />session if you have any questions of him or need more background or information. <br /> <br />ej <br />