05-02-89 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 2, 1989 PAGE 2 Todd Williams and Dick Acree met wth DPRA and worked out a contract and fee schedule. In order to speed things along, and with the EIS proceeding, Todd proposed the Council give the Mayor authority to sign the contract pending approval by the City Attorney and Attorney Chuck Dayton. (Todd estimated one hour for Dayton to review this contract.) The Council asked to have an opportunity to review the contract and will be prepared to vote on it when the City Administrator calls them on Friday afternoon. If either the City Attorney or Attorney Dayton has a problem with the contract, it will come back to the City Council on May 16, 1989. M/S/P Graves/Dunn - to postpone action on the contract for technical services between the City of Lake Elmo and DPRA, and for the Council to be prepared to have a telephone vote on Friday, with the vote being contingent on acceptance by the City Attorney annd Attorney Chuck Dayton. (Motion carried 4-0). Attorney Dayton will be asked to draft a proposal for a plan of approaches, when he would propose to take what action, and offer several different courses of action and what he thought would be the most appropriate or have the highest probability of success. Todd Williams will get a cost estimate for this strategy session from Dayton and report back at the next meeting. 7. PLANNING/LAND USE/ZONING: A. Petition: Concurrent Detachment/Annexation (Sunburrow Subdivision) The Planning Commission, at their meeting of April 24th, recommended by an 8 to 1 voted for Council consideration and passage of the Resolution officially accepting the petition from Sunburrow residents and certain residents.along Olson Lake Trail, in Oakdale for annexation to Lake Elmo. Memos from Fire Chief Fran Pott and Capt. Greene were presented to the Council addressing the minimal impact on services with annexation of the properties. Councilman Williams asked the City Attorney if the strength of our earlier resolution opposing annexation would be compromised if we accept this application. The City Attorney responded this is not a dispute that the City is involved with. This is dealing with a neighbor saying we think our situation fits in more with Lake Elmo and, if in fact you would do this, is it something that would be acceptable. Councilman Graves would feel more comfortable if there was such wording as the City of Lake Elmo does not support or recommend this approach, but would not object to the annexation of the parcel. Attorney Carlson stated the City is an uninterested party in this dispute to the extent that, if in fact, the petition is challenged at this Hearing the City is not a party to that. Graves then asked if he understood correctly, that the city would not incur any legal expenses as an advocate in this process and the City was not required to