07/23/2012 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES July 9, 2012 DRAFT 069 under eminent domain. They request that the city deny the petition and allow the petitioner to pursue 70 other avenues if he chooses. If the city were to grant the petition, damages must be considered. 271 272 Attorney Barnett noted that it is clear that Mr. Johnson has met the statutory threshold for granting of 273 the cartway. On the question of damages, the statute doesn't require that there be damages set and in 274 this case Mr. Johnson already has an easement and he shouldn't be exposed to any damages. Future 275 maintenance costs will be a consideration. 276 277 The mayor said he would intend to see the public hearing closed and for the council to receive more 278 information on outstanding questions and have another discussion in the future. Council Member 279 Roeser asked Mr. Johnson if he will be willing to put some limitations on future use with the 280 understanding that could have a bearing on damages now and in the future; he recommends that the 281 parties discuss that aspect. The mayor commented that he is indifferent about the action; the council 282 must drill down using the facts. He is sensitive to the privacy of that neighborhood but he doesn't 283 believe this is an issue of eminent domain (he reviewed the process that the statute dictates the 284 council must follow to consider the petition). He feels there is a value involved here; the 285 neighborhood is secluded and this would be an imposition. 286 287 Council Member Rafferty moved to close the public hearing. Council Member Stoesz seconded the 288 motion. Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote. 289 290 The item will be considered next at the August work session. The council will want more ‘11291 information on the settlement agreement and its easement implications. Also the council would like 292 to understand zoning and land use for the area in question. Attorney Langel said it would be helpful to 293 know the exact point of entry to the land. Clarification of the dock or lack thereof is requested. 294 295 6B) 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 07 -12, Amending Section 8, Industrial Districts of the Zoning 296 Ordinance — Planner Bengtson explained text amendment before the council. The city engaged the 297 assistance of Landform to review the industrial district zoning language to ensure standards are 298 consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as well as the goal of continued quality development. 299 The ordinance has been reviewed by both the Planning & Zoning Board and the Economic 300 Development Advisory Committee and both have recommended approval. The city council reviewed 301 the language at their last work session. 302 303 Kendra Lindahl, Landform, noted the goals of updating this ordinance were to simplify the language 304 and to move more specific performance standards into the landscape ordinance. At the work session 305 discussion the council did raise questions about how to deal with properties abutting other industrial 306 property. In working with staff, it is felt that the way to provide flexibility in those screening 307 standards so that individual situations can be considered is within the landscaping regulations. For 308 outside storage, the language in this ordinance has not changed. 309 310 Council Member Roeser moved to approve the first reading of Ordinance No. 07 -12 as presented. 311 Council Member O'Donnell seconded the motion. Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote. 312 • 7