CC_Minutes_2012_0521 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, May 21,2012 Page 37 suggesting that the Comprehensive Plan may not apply, there were other cases of Metropolitan Council approved Comprehensive Plans that flagged this as a potential legal issue. Councilmember Pust also recognized that City Ordinance, Chapter 1102, defined the process and requirements for Preliminary Plat ap- proval with that ordinance serving as the City's legal authority. Mr. Trudgeon, in context of subdivisions and for this process, concurred. Councilmember Pust opined that the City, through its ordinance, was given that authority from the State, and when ordinances were enacted, the public was as- sured of their fair and equal treatment based on the same criteria without arbi- trary issues. However, in referencing Chapter 1102, Councilmember Pust noted that it specifically stated that the City would have a Preliminary Plat approval process, then a Final Plat approval process. Councilmember Pust advised that she could find nothing in City ordinance combining those two processes, caus- ing her to question if the City had the statutory authority to combine that ap- proval process in one action. Councilmember Pust opined that the City Council therefore, should not take action tonight on this issue. City Attorney Gaughan responded regarding the issue of potential conflicts with the Zoning Code, Comprehensive Plan, and the Twin Lakes Master Plan. Mr. Gaughan noted the importance, for this discussion and the Development Agreement addressing infrastructure, that the focus was not on potential or fu- ture ultimate use of the property, but simply platting currently subdivided prop- erty, or redrawing lines. Mr. Gaughan advised, when considering whether this application conformed to the City's Zoning Code and Subdivision regulations, it was not based on future use, but whether dividing the property into three (3) parcels conformed to those controls. Regarding whether this use fits into the CMU or Regional Business, as brought up correctly by Mr. Grefenberg, Mr. Gaughan advised that it only came into play when the Community Development Department issued the building permit. Once the Building Permit is issued, Mr. Gaughan noted that there was a ten (10) day window for appeal of that decision if an argument is made that this project's actual use does not conform to whatever the official control was. Mr. Gaughan confirmed that this would be an appropriate process for such a debate at that time. However, Mr. Gaughan again clarified that the purpose of tonight's re- quest for action was for the purpose of redrawing lines regardless of their use. Mr. Gaughan advised that the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC)has confirmed that the City can't take the potential use into account in making that decision. Regarding Preliminary and Final Plat approval or denial, Mr. Gaughan advised that, state-wide, cities have the ability to consolidate those processes, even if the Roseville City Code does not specifically consolidate them in its current lan- guage, it does not specify that it won't consolidate them. Mr. Gaughan noted that the Final Plat must be completed within sixty(60) days, and while there ap-