03-07-89 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 7, 1989 PACE 3 Kenridge Acres (Christ) 12 Packard Park, 3rd 8 The Forest (Engstrom) 18 Palecek 2 40 Proposed Proposed Proposed Pending Councilman Hunt asked "is the City bound by mistakes of the past"? Carlson responded "it is assumed that the City knows what is done, despite the fact that it is a different body, but from a legal standing the City is one continuing body". Hunt expressed his understanding if this rezoning application was passed, it would be in violation of the 1979 Comp Plan, as amended by Resolution 83-56 and accepted by the Met Council. Councilman Williams explained that in Oct & Nov, 86 the Council did refuse to change the Land Use Map dated 3-15-83. That map, with the exception of Packard Park Additions 1 and 2, did show this area as being RR zoning. Because the Council at that time acted to retain RR as the zoning of this area, does this have any impact on consideration of this proposal? Carlson responded that the Council has an obligation to uphold the laws and abide by their rules; therefore, granting a rezoning would in essence be in variance to the original Resolution that was passed. The City could be subjecting themselves to some difficulties that way. On the other hand, because you have made a mistake in the past, you are not necessarily obligated to continue making that same mistake. Williams asked the attorney" because previous Councils have done the rezoning, does the three rezonings, in apparent violation of that resolution, throw out the entire resolution?" Carlson responded "he did not think so". Williams asked, "is the whole city, any place that is zoned RR, is that now subject to the same claim, that this resolution does not hold water, the comp plan doesn't hold water? Because we already zoned some RR to R1, do we have to rezone anybody who asks for it"? Carlson answered "it certainly would be subject to the same claim. You have to look at what was in the mind of the Council, established from their minutes, what was the intent, rationale behind the rezoning of Packard Park 1 and 2, when that was arrived at, how that was distinguishable from this particular rezoning application." Councilman Hunt explained there are a number of conditions when one reviews a rezoning; such as: have the conditions in the City changed, what are the supply of buildable lots. Although this resolution could be used for denial, therefore, we don't have to worry about other things because this resolution states we cannot rezone until it is changed, it should not be the sole reason for denial. Carlson added because of an impending moratorium, if- intent is to deny the rezoning application, the City would be in a stronger position even if it is a pending application. This resolution that was passed in 1983 is a valid resolution to the extent that notice by virtue of this resolution, the public or pending applicants should be held to that same standard and knowledge of the Council.