Agenda - Council - 04/10/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

about what it cost the City to fence-off the open basements that ACCAP was suppose to Attorney Goodrich replied that the City can go forward with the purchase agreemen)'~hd:~h~ negotiate that issue with ACCAP. Councilmember Hendriksen stated that tl~ey-!have had~:'f ACCAP before them making many manifestations of what they were going~to:}d0 ~vith the project. He has serious misgivings if they honor what they propose. ~..(.:!ii_?/ ?'i~,:::'.!: Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Anders6h;:tand Kurak. No: Councilmember Hendriksen and Zimmerman. ~:;~.: Case #5: Consider Action on the Anoka County Co~'U~fiity Action Program (ACCAP) Request for Rezoning, SubdiviSi~nhnd Site.Plan Approval to Develop a Multi-Family Rental Hous~in~:Pijoject in Rd. ~msey City Attorney Goodrich stated that the Anoka County Comi~U~nity:Actian P~:ogram had applied for rezoning, site plan review and subdivision approval to d3¢;a:multi-family rental housing project on the west side of T.H. 47 at the intersection with SunwoodDrive NW. The cases were on the November 28, 2000 City Coun,_ci~< agenda. With respect to the"r~zoning;'th~' City Council adopted findings of fact. The moti0n::to~ introduce the rezoning ordinance failed. Any final action on the rezoning, site plan ahd ~Ubd~gisip.n~was tabled in order to give the City Attorney sufficient time to research whetger 0r'no~ failure ~6-introduce the rezoning ordinance applies as a denial under the interpretation 'of the State 60 day rute:?In a recent case involving the City of Duluth, a motion to approve a land use application. failed, ffWas assumed that failure of the motion to approve constituted denial und~l:-the law: and the 60 day rules was satisfied. However, a strict reading of the taw requires the City ~o,move and pass a resolution to deny the application in order to meet the-60 day requirement. Failure of a motion to approve does not result in denial. As this relateg i~0 'the ACCAP:application, the'Ci~.Council adopted Findings of Fact regarding the prop0.se~ ~:ezoning. If ~e Council is inclined( '~6--' deny the rezoning a resolution should be adopted accordingly. If the:Council is inclifi~d':;[co approve the rezoning, then the ordinance should':,t~e approved accordingly. In·additi0n}'ACCAP has also submitted applications for site plan approval'and subdivi:si0n hPpm~.(; %~ Council will have to either approve these land use applications or adopt"r~solutions to den,S:them. Mr. Goodrich noted that ACCAP as offered to <.-:~xt'erid .this action f6fadditional 30 days. Counciln:/ember Hendrikserr inqt~ired if Findings of Fact have been adopted. City Attorney Goodrich replied yes, noting that the Findings of Fact were adopted on November 28, 2000. :"' .Councilmem~"Anderson inquired if the City had in fact approved a rezoning by not taking '. action withiathe sixty days. Citk Attorney Goodrich replied no, explaining that ACGAP extended the 60 days and has agreed to extend it another 30 days. -62- City Council/February 27, 2001 Page 12 of 22 I I I I ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !