Minutes - Council - 06/09/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Case #5: Request for an Extension of Conditional Use Permit to Construct Accessory Structures Prior to the Principal Structure; Case of David Hansen, Hansen Tree Farm It was noted that the City Code prohibits the construction of accessory buildings on a parcel without the existence of a principal building on the property. On May 27, 1997, the Council granted a conditional use permit to David Hansen of the Hansen Tree Farm to construct two accessory structures at their facility prior to there being a home or principal building on the property. Unless an extension is granted by the Council, the City Code states that conditional use permits are considered void unless the use is completed within 12 months of approval of the permit. Ms. Frolik stated the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the Council approve the six month extension. Motion by Councilmember Haas Steffen and seconded by Councilmember Zimmerman to approve the request for extension of a conditional use permit from David Hansen of the Hansen Tree Farm. Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Haas Steffen, Zimmerman, Beahen, and Beyer. Voting No: None. Case #6: Legal Opinion as to the Validity of Charter Section 14.1 Dealing with Modification of the MUSA City Attorney Goodrich reviewed that on February 28, 1998, the Council authorized the City Attorney and the law firm of Kennedy & Graven to research the validity of Chapter 14 of the City Charter. City Attorney Goodrich stated a portion of this research has been completed and Mr. LeFevere is available tonight to present his opinion. Charles LeFevere, Kennedy & Graven, stated that he appreciates the opportunity to meet with the Council. He noted his prepared opinion letter which was previously provided to the Council and summarized his findings on the Charter regarding Section 14.1 and subparts 14.1.1, 14.1.2 and 14.1.3. Mr. LeFevere stated that he has concluded Section 14.1 (the introductory paragraph), Section 14.1.1 (the 4/5 vote requirement) and Section 14.1.2 (the statement of intent to the effect the Charter amendment is not intended to alter the planning process) are lawful but are not always clear. He stated he believes a court would not rule them to be illegal since they can be interpreted in a way that would be legal. Mr. LeFevere stated it is his opinion that Section 14.1.3 is not lawful since it requires voter approval of all Council decisions to expand the MUSA. He explained that the City can regulate many matters of local concern and the way local government is conducted but the authority to do that is only as far as the authority granted by the Legislature. If the Legislature did not intend for cities to act in a certain way, then the cities do not have that authority. He stated there are two primary reasons for his opinion that Section 14.1.3 is not lawful. The process for initiating the City Council/June 9, 1998 Page 13 of 27