03-08-2005 PC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . Planning Commission Meeting Notes March 8, 2005 Page 2 Much discussion ensued regarding the example in question. Of specific concern to the Council is commissioners using their position as commissioners to advocate a position contrary- to City Council action. The Council encourages diverse opinions, however, the diverse opinions should be represented as citizen opinions as opposed to opinions of a commission, when appropriate. 4. Review of Legal Constraints City Attorney Peter Beck was present to review information regarding the legal constraints within which the Planning Commission needs to work. Mr. Beck reviewed the constitutional and statutory foundations from the Federal government and State of Minnesota. He reviewed plats and zone changes. Councilmember Motin asked if a new Council was bound by a preliminary plat that was approved by a previous Council. Mr. Beck stated that as long as the final plat is consistent with the approved preliminary plat, the new Council must approve the final plat. Commissioner Offerman asked if a preliminary plat complied with the zoning district requirements, what findings could be used to deny it. Mr. Beck stated that conditions could be applied to address the issues and that no one is entided to maximize the number of lots under the zoning requirements. Mr. Beck cautioned the Commissioners to note that citizen input and opposition cannot be the sole basis of denial of a project. Chair Anderson stated that public health and safety standards are a basis for findings of fact for denial. Mr. Beck cautioned, however, that the Commission needs to state specific standards versus broad general statements as part of the findings of fact. More discussion occurred regarding the Commonweal Development project located at the southwest comer of Main Street and Highway 169. Mr. Beck noted that complete denial of access would constitute a taking under case law to date. Councilmember Motin asked if down-zoning a property, say for instance, removing property out of the urban service district and down-zoning it to Ria, large lot single family would constitute a taking. Mr. Beck cited the Penn Central case relating to down-zoning and stated the courts have found that down-zoning does not constitute a taking and that the municipality has the greatest discretion relating to zoning and land use actions. He noted that making land owners wait to develop is not an issue in the eyes of the court. This would be related specifically to phasing in of land uses north of County Road 33. The Commission discussed overlay zoning as a tool. Commissioner Stevens in particular was interested in determining if overlay zoning would be considered a taking. Mr. Beck noted that the property owner, after the zoning overlay is in place, still needs to have reasonable use of the property, not the highest and best use. Commissioner Stevens asked if there is a definition of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the city. Mr. Beck noted that the courts have not clearly defmed these in black and white terms, therefore, it is dependent upon a review of case law to identify how the courts define these items. Mr. Beck noted that amortization is no longer a tool that cities can use.