Laserfiche WebLink
City Attorney Goodrich replied that the 13 amendments have been drafted for the public hearing, <br />but can be changed after the public hearing. Nothing is concrete pertaining to the 13 <br />amendments other than being identified for the public hearing. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen inquired if they are holding a public hearing for each of those <br />changes and they are not included in the Comprehensive Plan, won't it be necessary to conduct <br />another public hearing in the future. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich replied that the purpose of the public hearing is to discuss each <br />amendment and then vote on them. <br /> <br />Councihnember Hendriksen stated that if the meaning of the vote on December 11, 2001, was to <br />incorporate those land use changes into the Comprehensive Plan, then the opinion by Mr. <br />LeFevere is false. If the vote on December 11, 2001, was only to hold a public hearing and that <br />is only what they are going to do he could agree with the opinion. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich noted that the public hearing was being held pursuant to State Statute. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen stated that they are holding a public hearing on a Comprehensive <br />Plan amendment and the vote taken on December 11, 2001, was to include the Kurak property in <br />that amendment. Mr. Hendriksen stated that it was the City Attorney who stated that having <br />property included in the Comprehensive Plan gives the property owner a significant advantage. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich replied that he did not say that when the City publishes a land use map <br />and schedules a public hearing the land use is adopted. The vote was to include the amendment <br />at the public hearing and consider the amendments. The amendments can be changed after the <br />public hearing. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman inquired as to what vote of the Council is required to pass a <br />Comprehensive Plan amendment. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich replied a 3/5ths vote. <br /> <br />Councihnember Zimmerman stated that he thought rezoning took a 4/5ths vote. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich explained that State Statute permits 3/5ths for rezoning unless changing <br />industrial to commercial. <br /> <br />Councihnember Hendriksen stated that he did not think that anyone was claiming the vote taken <br />on December 11, 2001 was to approve the Comprehensive Plan. Currently the City has a <br />Comprehensive Plan in place and those properties are designated differently. Now there is an <br />amendment to the Comprehensive Plan they are considering. <br /> <br />City Council/January 8, 2002 <br /> Page 21 of 27 <br /> <br /> <br />