Minutes - Council - 06/23/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Hendriksen reiterated that only a portion of the comments have been included in the background information. Mr. Goodrich pointed out that Mr. LeFevere's entire letter was in the Council packet plus Mr. LeFevere gave Council about a 20 minute presentation. The Charter Commission also heard the tape of the conversation Mr. LeFevere had with Council and received the letter. Mr. Norman's case is an aside to Mr. LeFevere's opinion. There is no intent to analyze or reiterate as that was done on June 9. Mr. Hendriksen stated he wanted to point out that residents voted to enact this section of the Charter - we followed this process to the letter and the election was held. The residents approved the amendment by three to one and the effective date of the amendment has passed. Now the City has an attorney provide a legal opinion on the validity of our amendment. He thought that some of Council would like to be involved with this and he suggested that the City Administrator did not completely divulge everything to Council. Mr. Hendriksen reported that his own personal attorney has assured him the amendment is valid and that he could dispute Mr. LeFevere's opinion. Mr. LeFevere's conclusion really says the outcome of this is uncertain - this is not a "slam-dunk". It's not up to Council to pick and choose what part of the Charter you will honor. He mentioned a pro-development Council of three, naming Beahen, Hardin and Peterson. He added that if it is found that one amendment is invalid after both sides of the issue have been reviewed, he will accept that determination. Councilmember Haas Steffen stated that a little later in the agenda for this evening, we have to deal with a situation of an oversized building and also a situation where a resident is requesting a license for a dog kennel. Discussion ensued relating to having the City's planner (Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc.) review areas of the City to determine if there should be different standards for different areas of the City - depending on the population and lot size. Attorney Goodrich suggested that different performance standards in different areas of the City is appropriate planning. Mr. Norman reported that this has been asked of the HKGI as part of the planning process. Case #6: Request for Minor Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Modify the Metropolitan Urban Service Area Boundary; Case of Dolphin Real Estate Partnership Zoning Administrator Frolik reminded Council that they approved the site plan for a Burger King facility in the northwest quadrant of Highway #10 and Ramsey Boulevard on August 12, 1997. The site is just outside the Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary and was proposed to be served with an on-site septic system and well. Subsequent to the site plan approval, the developer, who is Greg Dolphin of Dolphin Real Estate Partnership, has determined through experiences in another community that on-site City Council/June 23, 1998 Page 8 of 23