Agenda - Council - 10/28/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I similar position will be taken by parties interested in the Apple Ridge/Barthold development and perhaps other affected property owners. Mr. Schroeder also noted a transmittal from the Metropolitan Council. They have concerns relative to the delegation of zoning authority by the City represented by this amendment and previous amendments. City Attorney Goodrich explained that the Charter amendment becomes effective on October 22, 1997 - it will be law on that day. The City Council is mandated to follow this law. We need to apply it equitably, mindful of people's property fights. He reminded Council of the inefficiencies of this language that he had noted earlier in a memo to Council. We were concerned if this language was manifestly unconstitutional - we said it was not and scheduled an election. Now we are not concerned with whether or not it is manifestly unconstitutional, now we are concerned with the application of it. We are concerned whether or not it's compatible with the City's comprehensive plan and how this complies with the regional planning of the Metropolitan Council. He asked that Council authorize the City to retain the services of the Comprehensive Plan Consultants. We need information from him advising how this amendment impacts our comprehensive plan. He asked that Council authorize him to advise these parties who have received approval in 1997, and advise them of the impact and advise them that we have to enforce this and also advise them of the inefficiencies. There are options. We could ask the Attormy General's opinion on the retroactivity. The court could decide on the constitutionality He added that the court system is not geared up to permit the City to submit a question for advisory but that would bring about the opportunity for court review. He felt that the City will hear from people on the monetary issues of this amendment. Mayor Garnet mentioned what a shame it is that the City Council's hands were tied as far as giving explanations of the language to the residents. Mr. Schroeder believed that this amendment is not in compliance with our comprehensive plan. Attorney Goodrich anticipated the City would be sued. The cost of working out all of the issues that come up because of this will be very sufficient. Motion by Councilmember Haas Steffen and seconded by Councilmember Beahen to direct staff to begin discussions with Hoisington Koegler about whether or not the City should suspend the comp plan meetings for now or how we should proceed and that the City Attorney is authorized to advise the developers affected of the Charter amendment and its effects. Further discussion: Tom Kurak, 15001 Sunfish Lake Boulevard NW, Ramsey, expressed a concern about how much the City will be paying in damages due to this amendment being the law. He felt it would be a good idea to get information out to the citizens regarding the implications of this amendment. He suggested maybe modifications could take place. Attorney Goodrich stated that information was not presented to the voters by the City because part of that is in the interpretation and the City does not have the ability to do that. Jack Miller, 4140 Terrace Lane, Mirmetonka, stated that he is not a voter in Ramsey but for 30 years he has been a property owner and tax payer in the City of Ramsey. He felt that the voters who voted in this amendment actually did the residents of Ramsey a favor as now the City will be taken to court and this will be brought to a head. He stated he would be in court. Basically this is a non- City Council/September 23, 1997 Page 11 of 23 ,35