07-26-2010 Council Minutes (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION July 26, 2010 APPROVED 46 great expense and the staff reminded the council a rezoning discussion should also 47 include consideration of the location and surrounds. The council also reviewed the entry 48 feature that doesn't meet code. It could be improved to bring it up to code. The second 49 resolution before the council is the variance request for that structure. Mr. Bengtson 50 explained that while staff is recommending denial of the variance request, if the council 51 wished to approve a variance, the resolution could be rewritten with findings to support 52 the action and with conditions that it be brought up to code. 53 54 The applicant, Ivan Kozhokar, addressed the council. He is interested in being a good 55 presence in his neighborhood and the entry structure was installed to improve the facility. 56 He is interested in bringing the structure up to code in order that it can remain. 57 58 City Attorney Squires noted that the Supreme Court very recently issued an opinion that 59 has changed the standard for issuing variances. They suggest there is no reason to grant a 60 variance unless the property is basically unusable without the variance. That should be a 61 consideration and probably requires some review before the council could consider 62 granting a variance. A council member confirmed that there is not a way to achieve code 63 compliance without a variance (it does not meet setback requirements). 64 65 The council concurred that the work toward an appropriate variance request should be 66 continued by staff. The comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning request will be 67 acted upon separately. L 68 69 Item 8A, Consider Resolution No. 10-68,English as the Official Language of the 70 City of Lino Lakes—City Attorney Squires provided the council with two versions of a 71 resolution. He had received a draft resolution from Acting Administrator Tesch that 72 would make English the official language of the city. He reviewed that resolution and 73 provided comments that resulted in some changes to the resolution. Since that initial 74 review, Mr. Squires indicated that he has done more research in the area. He noted the 75 number of states that have laws that relate to this issue. There are two types of laws, one 76 being more symbolic and the other more direct/prohibitory in nature and that includes 77 rules that implement. The versions he has provided he feels are between those two. 78 Regarding challenges on the record, they normally involve constitutional questions 79 including free speech. The council has before them three versions,the first version being 80 the resolution provided in their packet that represents the attorney's initial review. That 81 version was reviewed and it was noted that paragraph two is important in that it indicates 82 that English is the official language for certain official documents. In his research, Mr. 83 Squires noted that while court decisions on this matter have often been related to this 84 area, they also seem to have focused on the official and non-official nature of the 85 documents. So he has proposed language in version two in that paragraph that 86 distinguish a definition of official documents and that they would be taken in English. 87 That seems to be consistent with what he has seen is acceptable in case law. The version 88 three resolution is based on a model ordinance of the organization U.S. English; it was 89 challenged by the Civil Liberties Union but did not reach a decision as they withdrew 90 their challenge. He feels the version has good consistency and some defensible case law 2