Agenda - Charter Commission - 07/10/1997

Home

William K. Goodrich July 2, 1997 Page 2 Davies v. City of Minneapolis, supra, to this case. There, the Minnesota Supreme Court declared a proposed charter amendment unconstitutional where the amendment, if adopted, would result in impacting bondholders contract~ by undercutting the tax necessary to pay the bond obligations. The court held that the city council properly withheld the submission of the amendment to the voters. This should be explored further. There are a number of other problems with the amendment that deserve comment. The Consistency Issue. As you know the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act was amended in 1995. Before the amendment, these statutes and the Municipal Land Planning Act provided that in case of conflict between the local zoning code and the city's comprehensive plan, the zoning provision would prevail. Since I995, the reverse is true. I am faxing with this letter a case decided by the Tenth Judicial District Court on June 25, 1996 entitled Ranallo v. City of Rockford. As you will see Judge Mossey concluded that the "statute prohibits such conflict and renders the resulting ordinances invalid." See Memo, P. 2, You should compare the City's comprehensive plan with the proposed charter amendment for consistency. There is another aspect of the consistency issue to consider. All cities in the metropolitan area are required to update their comprehensive plans by December 31, 1998. Section 473.858, subd. 1 of Minnesota Statutes provides that "[alfter August I, 1995, a local government unit shall not adopt any fiscal device or official controt (zoning or rezoning) which is in conflict with its comprehensive plan, including any amendments to the plan, or which permits activity in conflict with the metropolitan system p.!.ans..." If you read the R.e. gional Blueprint of the Metropolitan Council, adopted December, 1996, you will see that it contemplates increased density in the urban service area. Your planners should review the Regional Blueprint and the various plans of the Metropolitan Council to determine whether the comprehensive plan amendment you must submit by the end of 1998 will be consistent with the proposed amendment. ..A. pplicability, I have difficulty understanding the rationale of the amendment unless it is intended solely to apply to a single parcel of land. As I read section 14.2.1 of the proposed amendment, it only applies where a new subdivision borders an old subdivision. The requirement that it border an existing plat is then modified in the last sentence to a "graduated density plan" which presumably, must be established by ordinance. Does this mean where there is intepvening nonplatted property more than 1000 feet from the. adjoining platted property, the amendment does not apply and the City is free to establish subdivisions of greater density? This is not clear in reading the amendment. o Traffic Generation Analysis. Section 14.2.2 states that the platting "shall be subject to" the developers traffic generation analysis, The City may be more confident with its own analysis by its planners and engineers. The section limits the City only to a "review of