Laserfiche WebLink
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, APRIL 19, 1983 <br />10. <br />91 COUNCIL REPORTS: <br />A. Dave Morgan - Continued <br />--Morgan- dnnot think there is any question that we did not <br />follow the law in holding that hearing before the Planning Com- <br />mission. Picked up the phone -took 10 minutes to call three <br />people and they did not get notification. Surely we have more <br />concern about our citizens then to nit-pick at this. Were <br />concerned abut the developer why are we not concerned about <br />the people that we are talking about. <br />--Eraser - dm not feel it will harm the citizens to take <br />adequate time to resolve this problem. Welrer;concerned about <br />the City and need to resolve this in a proper manner. Do not <br />see any need to take hasty action. <br />--Morgan- Hasty action was taken at the last meeting. <br />--Richard Ostlund;--Attorney C&NW - important to note that the topics <br />discussed at both meetings (Planning Commission and Council) were <br />rather extensive about the facility, its operation, and potential <br />environmental impact that the facility could pose and the rezoning <br />that was granted contemplated going before Valley Branch Watershed, <br />the City Engineer and planning people to make sure we complied <br />with the Site and Building Code Requirements. More important <br />item to consider is that actually notice was given and had <br />published notice and at the second hearing the City Council was <br />fully aware of the fact that the Planning Commission denied the <br />rezoning request and the City Council was acting on its own <br />initiative upon the information that was provided for it on the <br />record. It did not simply rubber stamp a Planning Commission <br />decision based upon a hearing in which arguably there is not <br />technical compliance. The people present at.ths meeting in <br />front of the City Coupcil were those people who would have been <br />notified if, as they say, technical notice would have been <br />complied with - not saying it was't. However, they were here. <br />Several of the people in the area were here. The Council acted <br />know the Planning Commission had turned the request down and that <br />hearing stands on its own merits regardless of technical defaults <br />that might have gone beforehand. <br />--Gordon Moseburger - situation the status -quo is <br />that if they applied for a Building Permit you would really be <br />in a jam, if you think you are in a jam now, if they apply for <br />a building permit while this rezoning is still in effect then you <br />are really in a jam. If you want to get yourself off the hook <br />my,�:suggestion would be, before they do something to incur costs <br />and reliance on what you have done, would be to reconsider and <br />rescind your action - hold things right where they are before <br />somebody does apply for a building permit. <br />--Mazzara - appreciate the resident turn -out and their concern <br />about Lake Elmo. Have some real concerns about the City's pos- <br />sible"liabilities as far as the actual rezoning of the property. <br />Although the people here have stated a strong statement to me and <br />regardless of the legal risk everyone appears to be willing to <br />take,,would have to go along with the people who are here., <br />--Eder - lived in the City many years and have a great deal of <br />respect for many of the residents - <br />Commend Councillor Fraser's suggestion for an informational <br />meeting concerning the facility that would give residents the <br />opportunity to hear the Council discuss the facility and its <br />operation so that a reasonable judgement could be made as to <br />the decision to approve the facility. Want residents aware that <br />before the proposal would move into the development stage there <br />would be an informational meeting on exactly what the proposal is. <br />