Laserfiche WebLink
they are not trying to split hairs but are having a hard time understanding how this conversation is <br />even being brought forward. He stated that their request is within the zoning requirements and <br />asked at what point this would be considered a taking of their land. <br />Jake Packer commented that to the best of his knowledge everything within the Excelsior Group <br />request is within the zoning requirements for how the site is currently zoned and it is the <br />responsibility of the City to stay within that zoning. <br />Mayor Kuzma asked the liability the City would have if it tried to change the zoning on the <br />property. <br />City Attorney Langel replied that is a difficult question to answer. He stated that the City has a <br />wide latitude to change zoning on property, but there is a process to be followed. He stated that <br />the zoning cannot be changed without changing the Comprehensive Plan, which would need to be <br />reviewed by the Metropolitan Council. He stated that the property is also within the MUSA <br />boundary which brings additional steps and challenges. He commented that before the Council <br />could even go down that road it would need to provide a rational basis for the rezoning. He stated <br />that without a rational basis for rezoning there would be liability. <br />Deputy City Administrator Gladhill stated that if the Council wants to go down that road, they <br />would need more time to review that rational to determine if it would meet the legal tests. He <br />noted that the sketch plan phase is optional for Council, but it was brought forward because of the <br />interest in the property. <br />Councilmember Musgrove asked if the current zoning of the property could allow for one acre lots <br />and whether 80 foot lots is the minimum requirement. <br />Deputy City Administrator Gladhill replied that is correct and quarter acre lots is the minimum lot <br />size. He stated that the density range would still apply and therefore lots too large in size would <br />be outside of that density range. He commented that while it is a minimum lot size, if an <br />application meets the minimum requirements the City would be obligated to approve the proposal. <br />He stated that the zoning could be changed, but there would be financial complications even if the <br />City were to prevail. <br />Councilmember Riley commented that the zoning has been in place for a long time, noting that <br />the Comprehensive Plan has also been in place and updated more than once. He stated that <br />previous direction was given that the Council would not support smaller lots and wanted to see 80 <br />foot lots. He stated that this meets the criteria the City has set out and has been in place for a <br />number of years and therefore believes this should continue to move forward as it meets the <br />criteria. <br />Councilmember Musgrove commented that she likes the layouts with the cul-de-sac but <br />commented that those can be difficult for snow removal in the winter months. <br />Deputy City Administrator Gladhill commented that could be solved for without impacting lot <br />size. <br />City Council / March 23, 2021 <br />Page 15 of 24 <br />