Laserfiche WebLink
plannlng regulatlon adopted by the charter amendment process. That is, land use matters cannot be <br />adopted by the Charter process but rather they must be adopted by the process established by the <br />MPLA. Therefore, Section 14.2. is invalid under Minnesota law. The Minnesota Supreme court <br />has declined any further review of the Nordmarken case. <br /> <br />City Administrator Norman stated that the Commission was questioned as to what they view <br />their role is in defending the Charter and an example of the Police Department was used. He <br />stated that if the City was faced with State law stating that the City could not have its own Police <br />Department he would hope that the Charter Commission would state that that section could not <br />be enforced. <br /> <br />Chairperson Vogt inquired if the legal opinion has anything to do with the Best Buy case. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich replied that it had everything to do with that. <br /> <br />Chairperson Vogt stated that 14.2.2 states that if there is land sold to a construction company and <br />they wanted to develop it there has to be a traffic study done to analyze whether the development <br />is feasible or if the roads would need to be realigned. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich explained that if that requirement were in the City's zoning ordinance <br />and properly adopted it would be fine. The City is requiring traffic generation analysis currently <br />for developments and the Council has before them a case to adopt language for the traffic <br />generation analysis purpose. He explained that it is not the language that is wrong it is how it <br />was adopted that is wrong. Mr. Goodrich stated that the City could adopt section 14.2 as an <br />ordinance through the proper process and it would be very valid language. Adopting the <br />language through the Charter is what makes it invalid. <br /> <br />Commissioner Swanson stated that on page 3 of the legal opinion from Kennedy & Graven it <br />states "Therefore, arguably, the charter provision which purports to control how the city changes <br />the MUSA line could be disregarded as irrelevant because it is beyond the powers of the city <br />council." Earlier in the document it states that the state government has review and comment <br />authority, which means they can look at the comprehensive plan and make recommendations and <br />in certain instances they can request a change but they can't state what is in the plan. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich replied that he was referring to the City's Comprehensive Plan, they <br />were not dictating on how the Charter relates to that. <br /> <br />Commissioner Swanson stated that the opinion is stating it is unconstitutional because it is <br />beyond the power of the City Council, which is not true because it is the decision of the Council <br />to decide on the MUSA line. <br /> <br />The response was no. <br /> <br />Commissioner Swanson stated that he would research the language further. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen stated that the Commission has heard only one side of the story and <br />his input might influence their discussion. <br /> <br />Charter Commission/July 18, 2002 <br /> Page 14 of 22 <br /> <br /> <br />