Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Minutes of Special Council Meeting <br /> <br />March 23, 19f1' <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />McAllister moved, seconded by Woodburn, that Council approve the <br />Preliminary Plat of McClung's Second Addition as proposed. Motion <br />did not pass (Woodburn voting in favor of the motion: McAllister, <br />Johnson, Hollenhorst, Crichton voting in opposition). <br /> <br />(Johnson and Hollenhorst said they wished to walk the property to <br />better visualize the terrain and problems pertinent thereto.) <br /> <br />Application Procedure for Proposed Windpowered Generator - <br />John Lambros <br />Council .was referred to recommendations of the Planning Commission <br />(Minutes of 3-4-81 and 3-19-81). <br /> <br />Miller explained that if the proposed generator is considered to . <br />be a "private utility facility", which the applicant c.J.aims it to <br />be, it would be exempt from the height requirements of the R-l <br />Zoning dis trict; if considered an "accessory use other than normal", <br />A Special Use Permit is required. <br /> <br />Miller reported that the Planning Commission recommends that a <br />Special Use Permit is the appropriate application. <br /> <br />Lambros referred Council to recent legislation requiring NSP to <br />buy excess power from private utilities; said he feels strongly <br />about the dependency of the public on NSP; will develop about 10 <br />KWH of electricity, selling surplus into the power grid. <br /> <br />In discussion, it was suggested that the question is "Is the appli- <br />cant a private utility now?" Lambros said he feels it is "the <br />principle of the thing"; fears it might b.e defeated down the line; <br />NSP is making electricity - Lambros is making electricity: it <br />would not be different from NSP erecting power poles. <br /> <br />After discussion, Woodburn moved, seconded by Hollenhorst, <br />Council interpret the wind generator as an "accessory use" <br />house and therefore a Special Use Permit will be required. <br />carried unanimously. <br /> <br />that <br />to the <br />Mo tion <br /> <br />Case No. 80-44, Performance Bond for Temporary Srorage of <br />Aggregate - Shafer Contracting Special Use Permit <br />Miller referred Council to his memo of 3-23-81 recommending a per- <br />formance bond in the amount of $16,000 for the temporary storage of <br />aggregate on the Milton property. <br /> <br />Woodburn moved, seconded by Johnson, that Council sccept a per- <br />formance bond in the amount of $16,000, as recommended. Motion <br />carried unanimously. <br /> <br />OTHER BUSINESS <br /> <br />Status Report, North Suburban Cable Commission - James Wingert <br />Council was referred to Wingert's memo of 3-23-81 re Status Report- <br />Cable Television Franchising Process. <br /> <br />Wingert asked Council's decision on the underground versus aerial <br />installation issue. Is installation of cable television cable <br />permissable on poles which currently exist within the City of . <br />Arden Hills and which are used now for electrical distribution and <br />telephone cables? <br /> <br />Wingert reported that the Underground Utilities Committee recom- <br />mends the following: <br /> <br />1. In an area where existing utilities are underground, <br />cable be installed underground;. <br />2. Where existing utilities are above ground, cable be <br />permitted above ground; <br />3. Where overhead are installed underground, then cable <br />should also be buried. <br /> <br />4. In undeveloped new areas, cable is to be buried as <br />per code requirement. <br /> <br />-8- <br />