CCP 09-17-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Arden Hills Memo September 10, 2001 Page 2 of3 to 75 feet. Information regarding the other two towers in the City is provided below for tit your reference: Tower Location Heiaht Notes MSI Tower County Road F / Hamline /1.694 240 Feet SUP - Case No. 72-24 MNDOT lake Valentine Road /1-694 350 Feet Tower /1-35W Most recently, the City received a letter from the tower owner indicating that the tower could be brought into compliance if the tower height is reduced by 80 feet. However, no documentation has been provided to substantiate that claim at this point. Unless an assessment from an independent engineer validates the tower owner's claim, it will be necessary to consider the options below. ODtions In light of the safely issues identified by the Building Official, the attempts made by the applicant to resolve the situation, and the current provisions of the zoning code, the following options are available to the Council: 1. Do nothing As is the case in most situations, inaction is always an option. However, since the structural integrity and safely of the tower has been called into question by the _ Building official, the potential exists that the city may be held liable for its inaction .- should any personal or properly damage occur relative to the issues identified. Previously, the Building Official, with the State's concurrence, has declared the structure to be unsafe since it was not constructed in compliance with the applicable provisions of the building code. Please see June 7'h, 2001 and May 11, 2001 memos contained in Attachment C for additional information. 2. Consider Revocation of the Special Use Permit Since the properly is in violation of the Special Use Permit (SUP) granted by the Cily in 1981, the Cily could take action to revoke the Special Use Permit. This would involve a public hearing process in which the permit holder could provide additional information documenting compliance with the SUP. In conjunction with the revocation of the SUP, it would be necessary for the Cily to articulate specific findings for the revocation. At this time, findings would relate to following two issues: A. The number of antennas currently on the tower is in excess of the number allowed by the Special Use Permit. B. The tower was not constructed in accordance with the "applicable provisions of the Arden Hills Code of Ordinances including specifically the Building Code portion thereof." More specific findings would be articulated if the Council elects to pursue this option. e