Laserfiche WebLink
member DeLapp stated we would have to give ourselves a variance if we built an <br />addition to the existing City Hall. The trailer for the Building Dept. will not be gone by <br />October 1, 2003 unless some other actions are taken by the City. <br />M/S/P DeLapp/Siedow — to direct the Planning Commission to come back with a <br />recommendation for a new site for City Hall, to include the village study area in <br />conjunction with the reuse of the existing building for the City's benefit as a community <br />center or senior center. (Motion passed 4-0:Council member Armstrong asked that the <br />Facilities Committee not write off this facility as the City Hall.). <br />B. Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan — Metropolitan Council <br />Planner Dillerud provided background information. He said the issue has several parts. <br />(A) We have 60 days to decide if we appeal Met Council decision. (B.) We have to <br />decide if we appeal and how do we deal with an appeal process. (C.) We have to <br />determine how to deal with applicants for land development activity until which time this <br />matter is resolved. <br />Attorney Filla summarized the City's options in his memo of September 17`h. In the <br />interim, the City would process applications based on the existing 1997 comp plan. This <br />could have an affect with the number of applications for development. <br />Mayor Hunt stated if we decide to fight this we would need a land use attorney. This <br />would send a message about how serious we are. He asked Planner Dillerud, with the <br />input from Attorney Filla, for a list of specialized land use attorneys. Mayor Hunt <br />explained this will be fought in a court of public opinion. The issue is self-determination. <br />We want our elected officials to make our decision. <br />M/S/P DeLapp/Hunt — to direct the City staff, planner and city attorney to bring the <br />Council a recommendation list of specialized land use attorneys. (Motion passed 4-0.) <br />Council member Siedow commented that he was saddened we had to talk attorneys. He <br />thought there was a middle ground, but he will stick with the view of the Council and <br />staff. <br />State Representative Eric Lipman: <br />He stated Office of Administration Hearings is a good one and urged the Council to <br />seriously consider this. It's fair and open to the public. The public would be able to <br />participate in the process. It's a legitimate, helpful process. The equities are clearly on <br />our side. He thought the Met Council is far a field the Metropolitan Land Use Planning <br />Act. There is no doubt what they are doing is illegal. The Open Space ordinance is a <br />carefully crafted ordinance developed over many years to preserve the rural view sheds. <br />The Met Council view is that sewer may go here. We are going to pave our green space <br />with asphalt, and we are supposed to be saving our view shed and green space for future <br />urbanization. This is a bizarre concept of conservation. It is a direct attack on the things <br />we have built in this community. Beyond housing, there is an issue of the law, and they <br />LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 <br />