Laserfiche WebLink
Item #01- Special Council Meeting - 01106114 <br />File #13-3638 & 13-3639 [Total Pages 99] <br />The applicants put this information forward in support of their contention that the <br />property can be reasonably developed under the City's existing ordinances, addressing <br />such issues as lake water quality, traffic safety, and other factors. Staff has not <br />examined these elements in detail, however, taking them at face value, they appear to <br />support the contentions made by the developer. The City's engineer will need to review <br />the materials in more detail (commonly occurring with Preliminary Plat submittal) to <br />verify the proposal as submitted. <br />Actions for City Council Consideration <br />A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment — Options and Consequences of a "NO" vote. <br />A.I. A negative vote on the Amendment to the Community Management Plan <br />(Comprehensive Plan) to Rural Residential would leave the property <br />owner in the same situation as today. <br />Possible Findings supporting such a motion would include following: <br />Goals in the CMP relating to (1) encouraging existing private open space <br />to remain; (2) addressing environmental protection objectives of the CMP; <br />(3) avoiding traffic conflicts and patterns generated by residential <br />development which could create impacts for intersections with County 19, <br />particularly during winter season. <br />Consequences of a NO vote would raise the issue of reasonable use of <br />the property, and the limits of local land use management authority. As <br />discussed with the Council previously, the City is at risk of a "takings" <br />claim if the City's land use regulations overly burden a particular property <br />by leaving a parcel with little or no reasonable beneficial use. <br />A companion risk is Minnesota courts have found that a local government <br />may not require one property owner to absorb an inordinate share of the <br />cost of providing public services, in this case, public open space. Thus, by <br />leaving a property owner with no reasonable use, and passing the burden <br />of providing public open space onto this owner, the City runs a risk of <br />paying compensation for a regulatory taking (sometimes also called <br />"inverse condemnation"). <br />A.2. A negative vote on the Amendment could be accompanied by a decision <br />to exercise the City's power of eminent domain, purchasing the property <br />for its fair market value, for a "public" use. Public parks and/or open space <br />would be a legitimate public use in this scenario. <br />2 <br />