Agenda - Council - 04/09/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Motion carried. Case #6: Comprehensive Plan Amendments Councilmember Kurak inquired if there would be a conflict of interest for her to vote on a motion that would delay action. City Attorney Goodrich replied that he did not believe that the City has ever denied an applicants' request to extend making a decision and he also did not feel there would be a conflict of interest for Councilmember Kurak to vote on a motion that would delay action. Councilmember Kurak noted that she would refrain from all other votes. Principal Planner Trudgeon stated that on February 26, 2002, the Ramsey City Council considered amendments to the 2001 Comprehensive Plan. At that meeting, the City Council instructed staff to bring back positive and negatives findings of fact for the two Comprehensive Plan Amendments submitted by Tom Kurak. Mr. Trudgeon reviewed the findings of fact to deny or approve Mr. Kurak's request to change the land use designation on the property north of C.R. # 116 between Ramsey Boulevard and Armstrong Boulevard to Mixed Use. Councilmember Anderson stated that, following the land use designation, the City would be required to rezone the property and inquired if a mixed use rezoning would require three or four votes. City Attorney Goodrich replied that the action before the Council only pertains to the Comprehensive Plan, which requires a simple majority by the City Charter. The State law that deals with zoning is not applicable, but would apply if the change is approved. A super majority is required if the zoning were to change from residential to commercial/industrial. The question Mr. Goodrich was unsure of was if the property is designated as mixed use and commercial or industrial is a permitted use, he did not know how that particular statute would prevail. Principal Planner Trudgeon noted that the current zoning on the property is industrial. Councilmember Anderson stated that in dealing with Comprehensive Plan amendments, it appeared as though they might have the 60 day rule situation if the vote comes out 2 to 2. City Attorney Goodrich replied that the Council always has the 60-day issue, but if the vote were to be 2 to 2 then the action would be considered failed and the Council would need to state that it was their final action to be in compliance with the 60-day rule. Councihnember Anderson stated that it was her nnderstanding that they needed an affirmative denial or approval. City Council/March 12, 2002 Page 11 of 23 -81-