CC 07-08-1974 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, ' Minutes of Regular Councl I Meeting Village of Arden Hills Monday, July 6, 1974, 8:00 p.m. V I I I age Ha I I Ca II to Order The meeting was called to order by Mayor Crepeau at 8:00 p.m. Roll Call ---. Present: Mayor Henry J. Crepeau, Jr., Councilmen William Feyerelsen, James Wingert, Charles Crichton Absent: Cou'ncll man Stan 0 I men Also Present: Attorney James Lynden, Treasurer Richard O'Kelly, Park Director John Buckley, Clerk Administrator Charlotte McNlesh, Deputy Clerk Dorothy Zehm Approval of Minutes The minutes of the Regular Councl I meeting of June 24, 1974, were approved as amended. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR None. REPORT OF VILLAGE ATTORNEY JAMES LYNDEN Case No. 74-17, McDonald's Corporation - Bul ldlng Permit and Sign Height Variance lynden Referred the Council to his letter of July 3, 1974, attached to which was a copy of a letter to him from Attorney Thomas J. Sexton ( 7/2/7 4) . \ Lynden reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations to deny the Building Permit and to require McDonalds to make application for a Specl al Use Perml t;, recommendation was based upon procedural grounds, the merits of the McDonald proposal not having been considered. Attorney Sexton, representing .McOonalds, dlscu~sed his letter of 7/2/74, and req,uested that the Council adopt the procedure outlined P" Pages 2 and 3 of that I ette r' ;'Attornay Sexton stated that he fee I s the P I an- nlog Commission acted In error In recommending denial of the application on procedural grounds and that the application should be considered on Its merits. He said that McDonalds wll I agree to adhere .to the documentation, performance and review requirements of Ordinance No. 174 In addition to Ordinance No. 99 requl~ements for a Building Permit, and requested that the matter be referred to the Planning Commission for Its consideration on the merits at as E!arly a date as possible. . ,- Audience reaction was noted as follows: I. The proposed development would be undesirable, because It wll I cause large traffic Increase, large amount of trash and litter and a great deal of pollee supervision. ~' 2. Whether a "fast food" franchise or "drive-In" restaurant, It should be given special treatment because of the In~ creased traffic and extra pollee supervision an establish- ment of this type will generate. 3. The establishment Is a "drive-In" within the spirit and Intent of Ordinance No. 99, and amendments, because It requires special treatment, and the question of whether It Is a "restaurant" or "drive-In" should be dependent on this factor rather than whether or not food Is consumed In cars.