Laserfiche WebLink
COUNCIL MINUTES July 9, 2012 <br /> APPROVED <br /> 269 under eminent domain. They request that the city deny the petition and allow the petitioner to pursue <br /> L270 other avenues if he chooses. If the city were to grant the petition, damages must be considered. <br /> 271 <br /> 272 Attorney Barnett noted that it is clear that Mr. Johnson has met the statutory threshold for granting of <br /> 273 the cartway. On the question of damages,the statute doesn't require that there be damages set and in <br /> 274 this case Mr. Johnson already has an easement and he shouldn't be exposed to any damages. Future <br /> 275 maintenance costs will be a consideration. <br /> 276 <br /> 277 The mayor said he would intend to see the public hearing closed and for the council to receive more <br /> 278 information on outstanding questions and have another discussion in the future. Council Member <br /> 279 Roeser asked Mr. Johnson if he will be willing to put some limitations on future use with the <br /> 280 understanding that could have a bearing on damages now and in the future; he recommends that the <br /> 281 parties discuss that aspect. The mayor commented that he is indifferent about the action;the council <br /> 282 must drill down using the facts. He is sensitive to the privacy of that neighborhood but he doesn't <br /> 283 believe this is an issue of eminent domain(he reviewed the process that the statute dictates the <br /> 284 council must follow to consider the petition). He feels there is a value involved here; the <br /> 285 neighborhood is secluded and this would be an imposition. <br /> 286 <br /> 287 Council Member Rafferty moved to close the public hearing. Council Member Stoesz seconded the <br /> 288 motion. Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote. <br /> 289 <br /> 290 The item will be considered next at the August work session. The council will want more <br /> �`91 information on the settlement agreement and its easement implications. Also the council would like <br /> X292 to understand zoning and land use for the area in question. Attorney Langel said it would be helpful to <br /> 293 know the exact point of entry to the land. Clarification of the dock or lack thereof is requested. <br /> 294 <br /> 295 6B) 1"Reading of Ordinance No. 07-12,Amending Section 8,Industrial Districts of the Zoning <br /> 296 Ordinance—Planner Bengtson explained text amendment before the council. The city engaged the <br /> 297 assistance of Landform to review the industrial district zoning language to ensure standards are <br /> 298 consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as well as the goal of continued quality development. <br /> 299 The ordinance has been reviewed by both the Planning &Zoning Board and the Economic <br /> 300 Development Advisory Committee and both have recommended approval. The city council reviewed <br /> 301 the language at their last work session. <br /> 302 <br /> 303 Kendra Lindahl,Landform,noted the goals of updating this ordinance were to simplify the language <br /> 304 and to move more specific performance standards into the landscape ordinance. At the work session <br /> 305 discussion the council did raise questions about how to deal with properties abutting other industrial <br /> 306 property. In working with staff, it is felt that the way to provide flexibility in those screening <br /> 307 standards so that individual situations can be considered is within the landscaping regulations. For <br /> 308 outside storage,the language in this ordinance has not changed. <br /> 309 <br /> 310 Council Member Roeser moved to approve the first reading of Ordinance No. 07-12 as presented. <br /> 311 Council Member O'Donnell seconded the motion. Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote. <br /> 312 <br /> 7 <br />