CC 05-27-1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, Minutes of Regular Council Meeting Pag3 'rwe> May 27,1980 After discussion, Woodburn was requested to obtain information relative to insuections, fees charged, etc. from State Fire Marshal and Fire Chief,. and to refer to Public Safety Committee for its recommendations to Council. Public Hearing - 8:00 p.m. . Proposed Amendment to Zoning Ordinance No. ~ Mayor Crepeau opened the Public Hearing at 8:00 p,m, McNiesh verified that the Notice of Hearing ~8a published in the New Brighton Bulletin on May 15, 1980, Plsnner Miller e~plained that the proposed amendm~nt would permit colleges in residential districts R-l through R-4 and in business districts B-1 aud B-2 with a Planned Unit Development Permit; re~ ferred Council to listed uses within these districts (Land Use Chart); expl~ined thst if amendment is approved, both e~isting coll.gms would be conforming in the districts in whieh they are located (Northwestern in R-l and Bethel in B-1); Land Use Chart would be amended by inserting a letter "D" in R-l, R-2, 1l.-3, R-4, a-I and B-2 Zoning Districts (Land Use Chart). McNiesh reported that no written comments have been received rela- tive to the proposed ordinance amendment. ~stion6 frem the F~ Crichton Bsked the difference between a Special Use Permit and a Planned Unit Development Permit. Miller explained that they are similar; ~onaiders PUD a more thorough review which is more demanding upon the applicant, conditions can be created and developer can take advantage of innovative planning techniques; permits more flexible planning that a Special Use Permit (SUP); places the burden of proof on the applicant. Woodburn noted that the reasons for approval or denial would be similar; based on facts presented in either case, Hanson said he is not sure the PUD permit has performed the service described for the City in the paat; it eliminates the setbacks which thC/l Planning Commi8sion has worked ha::d to establish. Hanson referred to a former proposal by Win~ert; aaked if that i8 to be considered also, or forgotten. Miller reported that the Planning Commission recommended disapproval of the Education District concept; felt colleges can b. adequately contrDlled in Residential/Euainess Distr(ct~. Miller a.id the Notice W8S published to permit colleges in Residential and Business Districts (a-I tbrough R-4 and B-1 sud B-2) in order to give Council flexibility, i.iti.l understanding was to p~rmit colleges in residential districts only (Bethel ~ould then be non-conforming). - . Wingert explained that the applicant would 'have to successfully defend the iSSU8S of 8 PUD permit; to set Standards of totally different sites is extremely difficult to do; the planning is the same with different circumstances to consider individually based on individual circumstances. Han8on~a.idthe Council haa not t-eceived a recommendation for the amendmeQt fLom the Planning Commission. Hanson asked Miller how Betbel would proceed if it proposes 1, 2 or 3 building~ this year. Mille" ',"plained that Bethel is Ii conforming use as it stands now; ~ plan was adopted which includes "as builts" plus buildings dashed 1& on their lang range plan which he believes inc~udes possibl, two dormitories; the bUildings shown aD the plan will be permittid by the Building Permit process; if other buildings bciyond this are proposed, an amended SUP would be required; if proposed building does not conform as reelected on the plan, then an amended SUP will be required. ' --2 - '