CC 08-09-1976 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes of Regular Council Meeting Page four August 9, 1976 Crichton explained that he did not intend that the Special Use Permit include future proposed construction; feels City should acknowledge the College's existence as it Is and issue a Special Use Permit for the Col lege plus any changes that the Council agrees with. Attorney Lynden agreed that this should be done. Leander LIppert, 1517 Glenhi II Road, attorney representing Arden Hi lis No.3, said that from the report of Mr. Lynden and the response of Mr. Erickson. we have seen that there is a question as to what Is conforming and what is not conforming In the area where Northwestern Col lege is located. Lippert said Northwestern College has not been In Arden Hills since 1953, as stated by Mr. Erickson; Northwestern Col lege was not In this spot unti I 1970. . Lippert said his neighbors are concerned about the non-conforming Issue and prepared a petition which he presented to Mayor Crepeau (copies of which were given to the Councilmen and to attorneys Erickson and Lynden); petition contained signatures of 50 households, Lippert said, In the adjacent neighborhood. Lippert asked that the Counci I do one of two things: I. Deny the Special Use Permit for two (2) reasons: a) Northwestern College has not complied with the pro- cedures under the ordinance Itself for the application of a Special Use Permit. (Lippert contended that If they have not complied with the procedures, It Is not a complete application; there- fore, Council has nothing upon which it can act.) Lippert said specific omissions are pointed out In a letter he Is submitting tonight, one of which Is an "ownership report". Lippert stated that Northwestern College Is not the fee-owner of the property - St. Paul Archdiocese currently owns the property. Lippert noted that the City ordinance requires that a written consent of the owner of the property must be obtained be- fore anything can be bui It. He said there are four omis- sions cited In the letter. b) Even If the application Is complete, there is the ques- tion as to whether a non-conforming use can be expanded. and It Is his opinion It cannot. There is a question of I aw he re . 2. Defer the matter until adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance. Then there will be no question at all whether the College is there on a conforming basis; this Council will have Just passed it and will know what it says. . Lippert reviewed th~ contents of the "packet" he submitted to Council, and explained that there Is a question re conformity which can be de- cided tonight by denying the Special Use Permit. or defer until new Zoning Ordinance is passed - then there would be 5 members of Council aware of the ordinance conditions, rather than one member (Crepeau) who was on th.e Council when current ord I nance was adopted. Lynden stated that a legislative body is never the same; State Legis- lature changes each year. Lippert contended this is not the question, it is Interpretation of the ordinance which can be avoided in a court fight. Lynden said he had a question as to the procedural point Lippert raised (didn't tell us what the others were in his latter) relating to the ownership report; Llpp~!_~~tjoned that the archdiocese Is the fee owner of the property a~~~ Lippert If he has seen the Owner- ship Report we received. Lippert said he had not. -4-