Minutes - Council - 02/26/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mayor Gamec stated that they will continue to have the issue that the property might be more suitable for low density residential. There was no Council action. Kurak Property I (North of C.R. #116) Councilmen~ber Kurak stated that she would be abstaining from the vote. Principal Planner Trudgeon stated that the City received a request to change the land use from Low Density Residential to Mixed Use. The Planning Commission recommended unanimously to change the land use. Motion by Mayor Gamec, seconded by Councilmember Anderson, to adopt a resolution approving an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use from Low Density Resideutial to Mixed Use, and authorize City staff to submit the Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Met Council. Further discussion: Councilmember Hendriksen inquired if the change were to be made, what is the highest density that would be permitted. Principal Planner Trudgeon replied that that was yet to be determined. Councilmember Hendriksen inquired if the density could be as high as 15 units per acre. Principal Planner Trudgeon replied that it will be a decision made by the Council. Councilmember Hendriksen stated that he is opposed because there are no protections in place for the existing neighbors to the north, but would agree to a higher use. Councilmember Zimmerman noted that it was another area they could use contract rezoning. City Attorney Goodrich stated that if the motion does not pass, the reasons why it did not pass should be stated. Motion by Councilmember Hendriksen, seconded by Councilmember Zimmerman, to table action and direct staff to draft findings of fact in the affirmative and negative. Further discussion: City Attorney Goodrich inquired if there were any issues regarding the 60- day rule. Principal Planner Trudgeon replied that the 60-day rule was extended to March 26, 2002. Councihnember Anderson requested that the City Attorney review the 60-day rule so that everyone could understand how that process works. City Attorney Goodrich reviewed the Minnesota Statute that pertains to the 60-day rule. He explained that he will watch the 60-day rule closely and address the issue if the votes come out a tied vote. Councilmember Anderson inquired if a tie vote to either approve or disapprove constitutes a final vote. City Attorney Goodrich replied that it would constitute a final vote after the appropriate information is included in the record. Councilmember Zimmerman inquired if State law was set up to approve a tie vote. City Attorney Goodrich replied no, explaining that it was put in place to force cities to take action in a timely fashion. Councilmember Anderson stated that if they have a tie vote to deny, it is still a final action so the 60-day rule would not apply. City Attorney Goodrich replied that that was correct. Councilmember Anderson stated that there are some issues in government that if a decision is made it cannot be reversed for a year, she inquired if that was the case with a City Council/February 26, 2002 Page 19 of 35