Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005 <br />Regular Meeting Page 20 <br />• explained there is some flexibility as to when it will occur but it will occur as a result of the PUD <br />application since it is a rezoning from the Industrial zoning to a PUD. In doing a PUD, it gives <br />the City greater flexibility in how it is developed, greater density, and preservation of wetlands <br />and additional open spaces. <br />Ms. Haake asked if the PUD allows more building stories. Director Ericson stated that is correct. <br />Ms. Haake asked if the PUD has to be done before any site work or removal of trees. Director <br />Ericson stated it will be done before "shovels are out there." <br />Ms. Haake stated it will be a zoning ordinance change and residents can have a referendum on a <br />rezoning. <br />City Attorney Riggs advised there was a case in the Minnesota Court of Appeals in 2002 <br />regarding a Best Buy project in Richfield called "Nordmarken versus the City of Richfield." The <br />Court of Appeals has stated, this is the basic holding, that the referendum would be in conflict <br />with State law; that State Law preempted the Charter with respect to land use issues. City <br />Attorney Riggs stated that is the State law on the books and it is very recent. In response to Ms. <br />Haake's question, City Attorney Riggs stated the answer would be likely no. That would not be <br />subject to referendum and courts have ruled on it very recently, within the last three years. <br />Ms. Haake stated there is another case study called "Denny versus Duluth" and in that case it <br />• does state that any zoning change has got to be done by ordinance and it is a legislative act. <br />City Attorney Riggs clarified that is not what Nordmarken found. <br />Ms. Haake stated it is and there has to be research on that and she would be happy to hear what <br />that research found. She stated it is her understanding that would be open to referendum as far as <br />she understands with court cases. <br />Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated yes it has been his experience in 15 years of <br />elected office that all zoning changes were done by ordinance and in some cases, down zoning <br />for example, needs afour-fifths votes. He stated the Denny versus Duluth case was a Supreme <br />Court decision, not Court of Appeals, in 1968. In that case zoning was determined to be a <br />legislative police power act and will be subject to referendum under the City Charter. He stated <br />the information that residents have been receiving has been very confusing and he doesn't want <br />to go down that road so far that it can't be stopped. He stated he had attended a Rotary meeting <br />where Medtronic presented that the City would get $169,000 a year in all fees, $43,000 a year in <br />real estate taxes, and $46,000 a year in administrative fees. However, if this is TIF related it <br />cannot be used in the general fund. He noted there is an $80,000 franchise fee, which the City <br />has been trying to get rid of and to put the fee on property tax. He suggested Medtronic check <br />with the business community who has been against that type of fee for a long time. He stated <br />there are still many issues with this contract and he is open to a discussion with Mr. McCombs. <br />• Ken Glidden, 5240 Edgewood Drive, stated he does not know what the commitment step <br />