My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PL PACKET 06212005
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2005
>
PL PACKET 06212005
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/19/2016 4:24:26 PM
Creation date
4/19/2016 4:23:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
33
SP Folder Name
PL PACKETS 2005-2011
SP Name
PL PACKET 06212005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
123
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Zoning Ordinance Amendment Page 1 of 1 <br /> Kim Moore-Sykes <br /> From: Gilligan, Jerome [Gilligan.Jerome@dorsey.com] <br /> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 2:08 PM <br /> To: mmornson@ci.saint-anthony.mn.us; kmoore@ci.saint-anthony.mn.us <br /> Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment <br /> Mike and Kim—Attached is an amendment to the Section 1665.03 to conform it to the requirements of Minnesota <br /> Statutes, Section 462.357, subd. 2(b), which provides that a supermajority vote on any amendment to a zoning <br /> ordinance only applies in the case of a rezoning from a residential district to either commercial or industrial <br /> district. This law has been in effect since 2001 and the City may not deviate from it. <br /> Also attached is an ordinance amending the Section 1665.04 to change the requirements for approval of a <br /> conditional use permit from a 4/5ths vote of all the members of the Council to a majority vote of all the members. <br /> I think it is a good idea to make this change. While Minnesota law does not prohibit the City from imposing a <br /> 4/5ths vote requirement to grant a conditional use permit, this now seems inconsistent with the requirement that a <br /> zoning amendment only needs a majority vote(other than for rezoning from residential to industrial or <br /> commercial) and also with the standard for approval of a CUP, which is that a CUP that meets the conditions of <br /> the zoning code generally must be approved unless the Council finds the use detrimental to the health, safety, or <br /> general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or to the values of property in the vicinity. I don't <br /> know the history of the 4/5ths requirement but think this is something that should at least be reviewed when the <br /> Planning Commission and Council adopt the amendment to Section 1665.03. <br /> Jerry <br /> CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION: E-mails from this firm normally contain confidential and privileged material,and <br /> are for the sole use of the intended recipient. Use or distribution by an unintended recipient is prohibited,and may be a <br /> violation of law. If you believe that you received this e-mail in error,please do not read this e-mail or any attached items. <br /> Please delete the e-mail and all attachments, including any copies thereof, and inform the sender that you have deleted the e- <br /> mail,all attachments and any copies thereof. Thank you. <br /> <<Voting on zoning amendment.doc>> <<Cond Use Permits amendment.doc>> <br /> 4/26/2005 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.