Agenda - Council - 07/25/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

JU~ =T '~D ~d!~1 ~HHDRL~ DE~HGOOD~ICH ~.6/6 (3) affected by approval of this subdivision by the City C~uncil, nor would his salary have been affected by d~sapproval of the prelimi~ary plat. The n,~-her of offia~als ~aking the de~is£on who are i~terested; the on1¥ member of the city Council who to the, best of my knowledge ~ad a potential conflict, of i~terest 'in making this !decision was Councilmember 'Hardin. ' (4) The need, if any, tohaveiinterested persons make ~c~sion. There was no nee~ for Councilmember Hardin to take part in the prelimiuary plat decision, as the remaining four members of t~e city Council were qualified to vote on this issue. Cou~cilmember Hardin did abstain on the vote for final plat approval of Amber Ridge, which action was unanimously approved by the other four c0uncilmembers. (5) T~e other means available, Sf an~, for an opportunit~ to r~View the decision. The relevant State statute and City Co~e provisions required a !fUll public hearing prior preliminary plat approval. The public hearing was held by, the Planning Commission ~nd the public was given amp1e opportunity for input regarding the subdivision. Review of]the City Council's decision was available by appeal to~ the District Court andl to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. I Based upon a~l of the above cited fa%tore, it is my opinion that councilmember Hardin was not legally disqualified because of a conflict of '~interest to vote on the lapproval of the Amber Ridge preliminary plat. I base this opinioD on four crucial factors: (1) CoUncilmember Hardin appear~ to have had no or arguably very minimal pecuniary in~erest in seeing that the preliminary plat approval w~s granted; ' (2) (3) (4) The City Council may not 1~ apgroval when a developer Subdivision Code relating Amber Ridge developer had city code; Councilmember Hardin's vote the action taken; and ~gally deny preliminary plat complies with the City's thereto and it appears the 'easonably complied with the was not the deciding vote in Any person aggrieved by the ICity Council s action on the prelimin~ry plat approval hgd ample opportunity to have this deczsion reviewed by ~he District Court and the Min~esota Court of Appeals.