CC_Minutes_2018_0226 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, February 26, 2018 Page 7 Chair Roe asked for clarification on the 2010 zoning code update. Mr. Paschke noted the Comp Plan, done two years prior to that, guided that area as of- fice/business park. In order to have a consistent zoning, those need to match up. Staff had to come up with a zoning designation for that area, and that was office/business park. That does not guide the uses in that area or any other area that may have a PUD. Until the PUD is cancelled or taken away, whatever it allows or does not allow in its design and development standards would apply to those properties. Board Member Laliberte asked to review the PUD permitted uses as outlined in the staff report. She asked about the fourth item down which includes "research, design, devel- opment, laboratory and clean room." Mr. Paschke explained that college/post-secondary learning is not a use that is listed here. Bringing a college into a building would require that educational be listed somewhere as a permitted use on the chart. Grover Saver, Jim Johnson, and James Jorissen represented the appellant, Univer- sity of Northwestern—St. Paul. Grover Sayer, Board of Trustees, University of Northwestern— St. Paul, introduced him- self as well as Jim Johnson, the University's Vice President of Advancement, and James Jorissen, appearing as legal counsel. Mr. Jorissen, attorney for the University of Northwestern — St. Paul, indicated he thinks the staff s interpretation of the PUD agreement is incorrect. The plain language of the agreement itself is at odds with the interpretation that has been provided by staff. Sec- ond, he pointed out that staff seems to rely on extraneous information when it suits their interpretation but then argues that one cannot consider it when it does not. To the extent that the language of the agreement is susceptible to more than one interpretation, then the City's obligation under the law is to interpret the agreement so as to favor the property owner, to provide the broadest use of the property consistent with a reasonable interpreta- tion of the PUD agreement. Mr. Jorissen continued that granting the building permit is the right thing to do. The University of Northwestern is not disputing that the intent is to use it for educational pur- poses. Currently 75 kids are enrolled in this program, and the Northwestern is scram- bling to find a home for the program. This is the plan to try to accommodate kids who are in the hard sciences. He pointed out two things as it relates to the language of the PUD. First, he recalled Mr. Paschke commented on the permitted uses within Exhibit E- 2 as well as one exhibit discussed was for laboratory uses. The University of Northwest- ern believes that that language authorizes the use of this facility for educational laborato- ry uses. In fact, many of the research labs in the country are operated out of universities, just like the University of Northwestern. There is nothing in the agreement that says it cannot be used for educational purposes or that a lab is prohibited for educational purpos- es. He noted that it is important that the issue be about uses. This is not about identities,