|
<br />,,~9
<br />
<br />Village Council Minutes
<br />
<br />-2-
<br />
<br />July 29, 1974
<br />
<br />After discussion, Feyereisen moved, seconded by Wingert, that the Council approve
<br />that a Performance Bond in the amount of $1,000 be submitted for completion of repair
<br />work in Eide Terrace; motion carried unanimously.
<br />
<br />REPORT OF VILLAGE TREASURER RICHARD O'KELLY
<br />(Absent - Report by McNiesh)
<br />
<br />Investments
<br />
<br />Plans to invest $205,000 for 90 days at 11.25% on August 30, 1974, at First National
<br />Bank of St. Paul.
<br />
<br />. REPORT OF COUNCILMAN JAMES WINGERT - Planning and Zoning, Board of Appeals
<br />
<br />Case. No. 74-26, Mounds View School District 621 - Building Permits
<br />
<br />Mr. Chatfield and Mr. Winsor (architect) described the two steel buildings proposed
<br />for classroom use at Mounds View High School and submitted plans for review (dated
<br />July 23, 1974), signed b~ Architect Mark F. Winsor, Bissell Belair and Green, Inc.
<br />
<br />AFter review of the plans and discussion, Wingert moved, seconded by Feyereisen, that
<br />the Council approve issuance of the building permits for the two steel buildings, in
<br />accordance with plans, dated July 23, 1974, subject to approval of Fire Chief Fischer.
<br />Motion carried (Wingert, Feyereisen, Crepeau voting in favor of the motion; Crichton
<br />voting in opposition).
<br />
<br />It was noted that plans will have to also receive approval by the State, prior to
<br />issuance of the building permits.
<br />
<br />Case No. 74-14, Pemtom, Inc. - Special Use Permit
<br />
<br />Wingert referred the Council to Attorney Courtney's letter of July 26, 1974, stating
<br />that the need for a "new Special Use Permit" is clear, but that he still has trouble re
<br />the density calculations.
<br />
<br />Crichton stated that he cannot agree with a more dense development than the ordinance
<br />allows.
<br />
<br />Feyereisen stated he feels that Attorney Courtney has answered this question in his
<br />letter of July 26, 1974, but if there are still questions, which Attorney Lynden
<br />can clarify by a review of his density calculations of 1972, perhaps the matter should
<br />be tabled until his return.
<br />
<br />After discussion, matter was tabled to the next Council meeting on August 12, 1974.
<br />
<br />Case No. 74-14, Sheehy Tennis Court
<br />
<br />The status of the Sheehy tennis court construction between Ridgewood Road and Snelling
<br />Avenue, north of GleDhill Road,. was reviewed by Wingert, advising that the Department
<br />of National Resources has stopped the construction-pending the applicant's obtaining
<br />a permit from DNR.
<br />
<br />Mr. and Mrs. Bill Krueger, 3160 Rid~od Road, said they were surprised when filling
<br />began. Mr. Krueger said he does not object to the tennis court, but expressed con-
<br />cern for the protection of the swamp, which is a wildlife area.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />Crepeau explained that the Council acted in good faith when it approved the issuance
<br />of the building permit, taking steps deemed necessary and required by ordinance: the
<br />confusion has apparently arisen from lack of communication.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />Mr. R. Sheehy reviewed the verbal approval of the fill project received from Engineer
<br />MacLennan of the Rice Creek Watershed District: explaining that the written approval
<br />is necessarily delayed pending the completion of the fill so an aecura~B description
<br />of the portion of land to be deeded for open space can be defined.
<br />
<br />Mr. Joe Kahnke, 1541 Edgewater, objected to fluctuations in the lake level and questioned
<br />the advisability of the issuance of the tennis court building permit which may disburh
<br />the utility of the swamp in connection with the lake.
<br />
<br />-?-
<br />
|