January 3, 2006 CCP - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

pursuant to the January 27, 2005 Memorandum of Understanding and states, that it was riot possible for the City to complete its amended comprehensive plan update with required modifications within the statutory nine -month period; and WHEREAS, the City states in Resolution No. 2005-067 that it requests the Metropolitan Council to grant the City an extension from June 30, 2005 to August 31, 2005 for submittal of its proposed plan update to adjacent governmental units and school districts, and an extension from June 30, 2005 to September 30, 2005 for submittal of its updated comprehensive plan to the Metropolitan Council; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 473,869 the Metropolitan Council play "in its discretion" grant by resolution a request for extension upon a finding of "exceptional circmnstances or undue hardship" and "may attach reasonable requirements or conditions to the extension'; and WHEREAS, it is appropriate and necessary to attach certain conditions and requirements to this time extension to ensure the Memorandum of Understanding is successfully implemented over time and ensure costly regional infrastructure is used effectively and efficiently; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes section 473.175, subdivision 3 authorizes the Metropolitan Council to commence civil proceedings by appropriate legal action in district court to enforce the provisions of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act if a local government does not adopt a plan with modifications required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 473.866 within nine months following a final decision, order, or judgment made pursuant to section 473.866; and WHEREAS, further delay in adopting a plan update with required modifications will cause additional inconveniences and costs, unnecessary expenditures of scarce public resources, and uncertainty for residents of the City and the Metropolitan Council's planning processes for its regional systems; and WHEREAS, it will cost the Metropolitan Council additional time, resources and money if the City does not adopt a plan update with required modifications within a reasonable period of time and the Metropolitan Council must continence civil proceedings in the district court to enforce the provisions of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act and the September 30, 2005 judgment in the Minnesota Supreme Court's August 2005 decision. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 473.869, the Metropolitan Council finds there are exceptional circumstances and undue hardship in this case for the following reasons: (a) Since the 1976 passage of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, the Lake Elmo matter is the first time a local governmental unit and the Metropolitan Council were not able t6 resolve their differences over comprehensive planning matters through discussion and negotiation. Both the City and the Metropolitan Council have found it necessary to devote extra time, resources and effort to this unique plarming process.