Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" ~ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />MinuTes ot Council Meeting <br />Page two <br /> <br />August 13, 1973 <br /> <br />food Vending Licensing <br />Attorney Lyndsn reviewed his letter ot August 9, 1973 re food vending <br />II cens I ng. <br /> <br />After discussion, the Council determined that the Village continue to <br />license candy, grocery. meat stores, wholeSale food stores. vending <br />machines and Itinerant food vendors. <br /> <br />It was further determined by the Council that the Village should re- <br />quire licensing otthese privately owned businesses operating as the <br />Treat Center Company; citations to be issued If vendor falls to eomply. <br /> <br />SAC Lawsuit - Status Report <br />Attorney Lynden reviewed his letter of August 9, 1973, with attached <br />pages of the Amended Complaint, which indicated how the various munici- <br />palities have aligned themselves - Arden Hills Joined the lawsuit as an <br />I nter-venor defendant. He adv I sed that no response i"o the amended com- <br />plaint is necessary. <br /> <br />Case No. <br />A.ttorney <br />attorney <br />I . <br />2. <br /> <br />73-16. O. H. Gustafson - S2ecialUse Permit <br />Lynden reviewed several points raJsed by Mr. John Healy, <br />for Mr. Partridge: <br />applicability of Ordinance No. 171 to Stonegate. <br />whether the development is subJect not only to the town- <br />house provisions of Ord. 99, but also to provisions con- <br />cerning PUDs and density zoning. <br />whether or not the townhouses could be filed under the <br />Minnesota Condominium Act. <br /> <br />3. <br /> <br />Mr. Lynden stated that he feels Ord. No. 171 is applicable and the <br />,crux ot the entire controversy, as he sees it, appears to be whether <br />the development complies with the density zoning requirements of Ord. <br />No. 99. It was Mr. Lynden's opinion that, because the development <br />comprises both townhouses and single family lots, the density zoning <br />of 14,000 sq. ft./unlt applies. <br /> <br />In calculating the density of the proposal, Mr. Lynden deducted from <br />the total project acreage eight (8) acres tor dedicated park land and <br />9.20 acres for street rlght-ot-way. The remaining 90.66 acres was <br />mul~lplled by the applicable density of 3.11 tor R-I zoning, perml~ting <br />282 units. If 9 townhouses are removed (re the open space letter of <br />August 9)~ there would be 286 townhouses and 27 single family lots In <br />tho Stonegate proposal. <br /> <br />In review of pol~ts raised by the Council at the July 30 Council meet- <br />ing, .Attorney Lynde" stated that he agrees that collector streets, <br />streets of medium to high use, should be dedicated. He said Mr. <br />Gustafson has responded to the 150 foot maximum building length ques- <br />tion in his letter of August &0, 1973. <br /> <br />Mayor Crepeau asked If a unanimous vote is required with only three <br />councilmen present. <br /> <br />Lynden said that, in his opinion, a majority of the quorum would con- <br />stitute Council action. <br /> <br />Herrick raised two questions from the Council meeting of July 30. 1973: <br /> <br />I. Deletion of recreation building from the proposal. <br />2. Trail area proposed for dedication. <br /> <br />Mr. Herrick reported that, in review of the Parks and Recreation <br />Committee Minutes, and consultation with committee members, the Parks <br />committee did not intend that the recreation building be deleted from <br />the development. <br /> <br />Mr. Herrick reviewed the routing of the proposed trail to be dedicated, <br />asking if, commencing at the northwest corner of the site, the trail Is <br />proposed to extend along County Road E2 to Valentine Hills School, then <br />east from the school to the proposed dedicated park ot 3.4 acres in the <br />northeast corner of the site I the ontir. north boundary of the site). <br /> <br />Mr. Gustafson said he had not understood this, but would agree to this <br />rlArlf,...:=.+J........ <br /> <br />~:4. <br />