Agenda - Council - 08/12/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I Councilmember moved for its adoption: introduced the following resolution and RESOLUTION #97-08- RESOLUTION SCHEDULING A SPECIAL ELECTION ON A CHARTER AMENDMENT FOR SEPTEMBER 22, 1997 AND APPROVING THE FORM OF BALLOT. WHEREAS, on June 24, 1997, petition for a Charter Amendment approximately 370 city voters; and the City Council received a (the "Amendment") signed by WHEREAS, on July 8, 1997, the City Administrator declared that each page of the Amendment was properly attested and that the petition was signed by a sufficient number of voters; and WHEREAS, the city's Charter Commission has reviewed the Amendment and its findings and recommendation with regard to the Amendment are as follows: (Charter Commission meets on August 11, 1997 therefore its input will be presented at the Council meeting on August 12, 1997); and WHEREAS, the city Attorney has presented the City Council with his legal opinion concerning the Amendment, which opinion the City Council accepts and is as follows: The Amendment is intended to control residential development density within the MUSA area and as such is a zoning amendment. The Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act prohibits a municipality from enacting any official controls (Zoning Amendments) which conflict with the municipality's comprehensive plan (MS §473.858) and therefore any such conflict renders the ordinance invalid. Presumably, a Charter Amendment creating such a conflict would also be invalid. Any property within the MUSA boundary which is denied urban lot status would be affected by the Amendment, since the City's Compre- hensive Plan contemplates urban size lots within the Pursuant to MS §473.585, Subd. 1 the City also is not allowed to adopt official controls (Zoning Amendments)" · . which permit activity in conflict with metropolitan system plans. " The Metropolitan Council's Regional Blueprint contemplates increased density within the MUSA area. Again, adoption of the Amendment may very well conflict with this State statute requirement. Both Article I, Section 10 of the United States Consti- tution and Article I, Section 11, of the Minnesota Constitution prohibit impairment of contract by providing the state shall not pass any law impairing the obli- gation of contracts. The retroactive application of the Amendment to January 1, 1997 may very well be an impair-