CC_Minutes_2011_0214 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, February 14, 2011 Page 15 Metropolitan Council, but that Comprehensive Plan Amendments required their review and ap- proval. Mr. Bartholdi noted that zoning changes were therefore under the control of the Planning Commission and City Council, with distinctions in place as to subject property owners and adja- cent or neighboring property owner rights. Chair Roe refocused discussion on the issues at hand; advising that if additional and related dis- cussions were pursued, it should be when the Board recessed and reconvened as the City Coun- cil. At approximately 7:37 p.m., Chair Roe opened the meeting up for public comment on this mat- ter. Public Comment Rita Mix,3207 Old Highway 8 Ms. Mix advised that she had sent a letter with her written comments yesterday, and referenced them in her verbal comments at this time. Ms. Mix expressed concern that the City Council was not putting faces to the names on the petition; and advised that many of those signatures were from elderly residents unable to attend the meeting and not having access to e-mail. Ms. Mix opined that the petition was their main voice to explain what they wanted for the Old Highway 8 neighborhood; and it was the impression that those voices and others were not easily heard and that tonight's proceeding was to silence those voices. Ms. Mix questioned whether if their being declared as having no standing meant that their voices did not deserve to be heard. Ms. Mix asked if the City Council had heard their message or was it being obliterated because they didn't understand the process rules. Ms. Mix noted that neighbors were not available during past dis- cussions on development of their area and decisions were made by a previous City Council. Ms. Mix advised that they were here now as a result of that past decision; and asked what the respon- sibility of the current City Council was compared to those Council's of the past; and asked that the current City Council restore their faith in the City and find a compromise on development density on the two subject parcels; and to work with the neighbors to achieve what is best for the neighborhood. Member Pust asked Ms. Mix if she and the neighborhood did not understand the last time they appeared before the City Council that they were attempting to proceed on a path that was not le- gally an option for them; but they appeared to be continuing on the same path. Member Pust clarified that the term "standing"was a legal concept to explain that they had no legal standing to continue on this path,but that they did have a right to ask the City to change the zoning, but were not asking that. Ms. Mix stated that she thought they had done and the City Council had said, "No." Member Pust advised that the last time the group appeared before the City Council, it was dis- cussed that the neighbors could go back and petition for rezoning and that the City Council could consider initiating a Comprehensive Plan Amendment; but instead they appeared to be simply appealing something that they had already been told that the City Council had to deny as the neighbors had no legal standing.