My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC 09-13-1976
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
1970-1979
>
1976
>
CC 09-13-1976
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:11:59 PM
Creation date
11/9/2006 3:46:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />. . <br /> <br />Minutes of Regulsl- Counci I Meeting <br />Page two <br /> <br />September 13, 1976 <br /> <br />REPORT OF VILLAGE ATTORNEY JAMES LYNDEN <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Status of County Road F Easements <br />(See Engineer's Report) <br /> <br />Report re lawsuits - North Star Concrete Company vs. Pemtom et al and <br />City of Arden Hills <br />Lynden refer~ed Council to his letter of 9-13-76 in which he notes that <br />Mr. James l. Wahlfors is undertaing the defense, representing INA on <br />behalf of Pemtom and the City of Arden Hills; advised that Wahlfors' <br />legal services in defending the City will cost the City nothing. <br /> <br />lyndsn also noted that City has also been named in a Notice of Claim <br />fi led by Ziegler, inc.; City '11111 be protected from such suit by the <br />hold harmless provision in the Development Agreement in connection <br />with the North Second AdditIon. <br /> <br />Resolution No. 76-47, Authorizing Execution of Joint Powers Agreement <br />re Joint Fire Protection Board and Cost Al location for Fire Protection <br />Council was referred to letter from Lynden (9-IO-76j re Proposed Joint <br />Powers Agreement, Fire Protection Services. <br /> <br />After discussion, Crichton moved, seconded by Wingert, that Council <br />adopt Resolution No. 76-47, authorizing execution of Joint Powers <br />Agreement attached thereto by the Mayor and Clerk Administrator, and <br />approving appointment of Charles Crichton as Arden Hi l!s representa- <br />tive on the Joint Fire Protection Board unti I December 31, 1916. Motion <br />carried unanimously. <br /> <br />-"- <br /> <br />Codification of Ordinances <br />Lynden referred Counci I to his letter of 9-13-76 re Codification of <br />Ordinances, noting his questions and the changes he has made; re- <br />quested that Counci I and staff review code so proofs can be returned <br />to Municipal Code Corporation by the end of next week (September 24th). <br /> <br />Case No. 76-3, Northwestern Col lege - Special Use Permit <br />lynden referred Council to his letter of September 10, 1976 re Case <br />No. 76-3, Northwestern College - Application for Special Use Permit <br />to Construct and Operate Fine Arts Faci lity, noting his conclusions <br />with respect to: <br />I. Non-conforming Use, and <br />2. Deferment of Action. <br /> <br />Crichton made the fol lowing statement: <br /> <br />The Council Is being asked to approve a Spacial Use Permit for a Fine <br />Arts Center to be erected on 'the campus o'f Northwestern College. As <br />we all know, the existing buildings in Arden Hills housing the College <br />were there before our first zoning ordjnances were enacted. <br /> <br />4l <br /> <br />There has, of course, been considerable discussion on the status of <br />the Col lege with regard to our zoning ordinances. ;1' has been sugges- <br />ted that since there appears to be a question of whether or not a col- <br />lege Is a permitted use in a residential district, we should defer a <br />decision until our new zoning ordinance, which presumably will remove <br />any question, is enacted. I cannot agree with this approach, unless <br />the Col lege itself cares to withdraw Its request, because! feel that <br />the application must be considered on the ordinances in effect at the <br />time it was submitted. <br /> <br />Crichton said that as he ~eads Ord. 174, It clearly dl ffarentiates be- <br />tween "churches, prlvate schools, public schools and parochial schools" <br />which are permitted by Special Use Permit in a residential zone and <br />'private col leges and institutions" which are not. Thl$ current ordi- <br />nance stems logically from the 1966 Comprehensive Plan, and therefore <br />represents the ordinance in effect at the time the application was sub- <br />mitted. He said that although it is true that the 1976 Comprehensive <br />Plan appears to remove the distinction, he pointed out to ail concerned <br />that the ordinance stemming from its concepts is not yet enacted and <br />is therefore not relevant to this issue today. <br /> <br />-2- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.