WILLMAR
— The next expected Willmar City Council action regarding Cura’s proposal for a senior housing development will be consideration of the ordinance for the sale of the 5.54 acres of city-owned parkland following the public hearing April 15.
Planning and Development Director Christopher Corbett explained Wednesday to the Planning Commission that the City Council does not need to act on the commission’s failure to approve the $150,000 sale of southwest Willmar parkland during its March 20 meeting, on a 3-3 tie vote.
A memorandum of the
Willmar Planning Commission’s
actions regarding the development by
Cura, a nonprofit headquartered in Paynesville,
will be submitted to the
Willmar City Council
prior to the April 15 hearing.
The
Willmar City Charter
requires a resolution from the Planning Commission setting forth the facts and reasoning only if a land sale is “affirmatively disapproved” — which is not the case with a tie vote.
It is not clear whether the Planning Commission will review an amended purchase agreement that is expected to come before the City Council. Council members were told at their meeting earlier this week that the parkland sale and the sale of the city-owned care center real estate — 4.10 acres at 1801 Willmar Ave. S.W. just east of the parkland — would be combined into one purchase agreement with Cura.
The Planning Commission must review all city land sales, but Corbett told the West Central Tribune he could not say whether the matter would come back to the Planning Commission without seeing how the agreement is amended. City Attorney Robert Scott has not yet responded to Tribune questions.
The discussion by the Planning Commission on Wednesday involved only the original Cura purchase agreement that it had reviewed.
Corbett explained that since it was a tie 3-3 vote when the commission considered approval, “we found it necessary to draft a memo instead (of a resolution) and send that to the City Council.”
The Planning Commission approved the memorandum in a split 7-1 vote. Commissioner Gary Newberg made the motion, which was seconded by Commissioner Steve Dresler. Voting in favor of the motion were Newberg, Dresler and commissioners Jonathan Marchand, Yvon Fils-Aime, Fernando Cano, Bob Poe and Stacy Holwerda.
Voting against the motion was Commissioner Chris Buzzeo, who questioned why it was a memorandum and not a resolution. He was also concerned that the Planning Commissioners were not able to review the memo prior to the meeting.
“The reason we chose to do a memo versus a resolution is because it wasn’t overwhelmingly denied,” Corbett said, referencing the requirement in the charter for a resolution only if there is an affirmative disapproval. “So 3-3, it doesn’t pass and it doesn’t fail.”
Commissioner Buzzeo further questioned the use of a memo.
“It either passes or it didn’t — so that’s my question, why a memorandum instead of a resolution? It didn’t pass, either way,” Buzzeo said.
Corbett further explained that the vote was “almost like null and void.”
When the Planning Commission reviewed the purchase agreement, three members voted in favor of the motion to approve the purchase, and three voted against the motion. If the motion had failed on a 2-4 vote, then a resolution would have been required, Corbett said.
The council, in such an instance, would have the ability to overturn the disapproval with five affirmative votes.
Because the Planning Commission had not received the memorandum prior to the meeting, Buzzeo stated he would like time to review and read it before approving it. However, there is not another commission meeting scheduled prior to April 15.
Acknowledging that was Buzzeo’s right, Corbett said, “We wrote the memo where it states the facts of what happened. Most of the body of the memo is from the minutes that were approved, as well as the (City) Charter itself.”
He also explained that the Planning Commission didn’t “necessarily need” to take action on the memorandum, but he would like some form of approval before sending it to the City Council.
“It’s one of those things that I need you to look at and say you’re OK with it or provide feedback for what I can change,” he said.
The memorandum goes over the background of the Cura development, stating that the City Council on Feb. 20 approved a purchase agreement between the city and Cura for 5.54 acres of publicly owned land in the south Swansson Field Recreation Complex and setting a public hearing for the sale of the land.
It then briefly summarizes the purchase agreement and discusses what the City Charter states about the Planning Commission’s responsibilities regarding land transactions. It then follows up with the actions that the Planning Commission has taken regarding the review of the land transaction.
The memorandum then states that the City Charter includes a provision allowing the City Council to override any decision by the Planning Commission and includes the verbage from the City Charter for that provision.
Finally, it states, “Due to the Planning Commission failing to approve the proposed purchase agreement by split vote, this memorandum shall provide notice of the Planning Commission decision to the City Council in lieu of a resolution.”
