04-19-83 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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