02-21-89 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 1989 PAGE 5 M/S/P Graves/Moe - called the question. (Motion carried 5-0). M/S/F Hunt/Williams - to amend the motion to instruct the Building Official to take an inventory of all buildable residential lots to be submitted by the March 7th Council meeting. (Motion failed 2-3 Dunn,Moe, Graves:felt taking inventory of all buildable lots was too inclusive and would rather see the inventory limited to Rl available lots so this can be accomplished by March 7th.) M/S/P Graves/Hunt - to direct the City Attorney to render a legal opinion on the status of Resolution 83-56, what are the constraints of this resolution on any future rezonings or lack of rezonings of property stated in the affected area, and if the Council should decide to have a moratorium on all applications for R-1 zoning until Residential Zoning is decided, what is the legal status of any pending zoning applications. (Motion carried 5-0). M/S/P Hunt/Williams - to postpone consideration of the rezoning request from RR to R1 by Gene Peltier for Packard Park, 3rd Addition until March 7, 1989 Council meeting. (Motion carried 5-0)-. 6. RESOLUTION NO. 89-16: Legislation re: Municipal. Board Authority The City Attorney drafted, and handed out at the last meeting a Resolution for Council consideration. This was postponed to this meeting to allow the Council time for review. Councilman Graves agreed with the general tenure and content of the resolution. He had a problem with the statement "strongly supports any and all efforts to eliminate any authority on the part of the Municipal Board to authorize detachments and annexation" because he believes the mechanism should be modified, and he has talked to Fritz Knaak about amending the submitted bill, to allow a community to have a defined period, either 45 or 60 days, to veto any proposed detachment/annexations. Graves did not support the bill as presented, but he does believe the City should be capable, and should be allowed to have a strong say in their ability to maintain their city borders, but that the city has to be sensitive to the need of the propertyholders and try to work with them to make fair and appropriate use of their land, in concert with the needs of the community. Councilman Moe objected to the verbage of Page 1, 8th paragraph, constant use of a comprehensive plan that is only partially completed and in effect, on Page 1, 8th paragraph, he takes exception to "seized upon by developers" he does not know that developers are in on this petition, but only propertyowners that wanted to be annexed. Moe didn't see anything stated that would be beneficial to both cities --only sees beneficial to the City itself. He didn't see anything stated for the landowner who pays his taxes and lives here. Therefore, he could not support this resolution. The following changes were made to the resolution: