CC 02-27-1978 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes of Regular Councii Maeting February 27, 1978 Fage four dormato�de�, and since the Counci4 has not acted on this application for the rezoning, we applted for the rezoning aga(n, in order to meet the deadiine for publication. We plan to contract tor the dormitorias separately 4rom the addition to Buildtng E; could not 'apply for them both at the same time because the plans were not reedy. • Lissner said the dorm(tories plans are the same as presented a year ago. Hanson satd he has had the same reservat(ons as noted by Council- � man Crichton; wonders whether Councii sfiouid consider the epplication in its two parts - act �n the rezoning first and, assuming fihat is favorable, then verify the questio� of the conformance of the existing c�mpus whEch is the Speciat Use Permit they are requesting. hliller explalned he'd be inciined to inciude the entire campus, as defined by its legal boundaries, fn the Special Use Permit; �ny time there ie any change, an amendment wou0d 6e required; ss of now it is suggested that the "as builts" be accepted as rell as the tao new dormitories. �ingert noted that he does not knok of anything in our ordinance structure that speciftes that a Specia! Use Permif cover the entire proper�y ownership; suggested campus could be appor#loned (norih half, south half, east haif, etc.): feeds these can be independent, but defined in the legal descr9ption. Ltssner ciartfied that the reaon{ng fs requested for all the Bethel acres whtch lie Nithin the boundaries of the maJor highways and the rail road; area w�st of Hlghway ID is not ineluded in the iegal descriptions. Vt was noted thaf the re-zoning would not include the one parcel on the wesfi side of �alent(ne Lake which is not owned by Bethei. • �'ingert suggested that Cour.cil conflne its consideration to the rezoning application from R-t to L-B, leading to a conforming basis which rouid p�rmit a Spocfal U>e Permit to be generated tor private coileges and i�stituiionsp design de?ails Nouid go into the speclal use permit considerations subsequent to resoiving the zoning. Miller reporfied that the Ptanning Commissior recommends approvai • �f the rezoning; dlscussed some of �`he opi-icns such as writing fhe ordinance to permft institutional development in a special zone; for exaedi�ncy, the Planning rommission fett ths possible oangers in the rezoning were nofi that criticai, espscialiy with the contro;s afforded in the Special Use Pernit process. Wingert noted that the City gives up a measurs of control by the rezoning; removes the co{iege from a non-conforming status to a contorming but controlied by Special U;e Permifi, �ith the various �ses that become permifted if fihe campus is rezoned to l-B; thinks l'� the basis for �he PtannEng Commtssion's recommendation in the rezoni�g was nofi that there are some ofi these uses that are less dest�abie than others, but feit tha cha�ce5 of losing control, t�at couid not ba properly exarcised through a Speciaf Use Permit procedurs, was pretty tow. � �ingert said he was opposed to rezoning a year ago because he was not condinced that there wasn't another more protective way to procaed than a rezon3ng; not any more comfortabie now with the rezoning and the potentiaE loss of control, but am not really anxious to propose an aiternate way. Woodburn suggested that the rezonirsg is the most expedient way to go; there are adequate reasons that this is a unique situation: -4-