Laserfiche WebLink
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 11, 1992 5 <br />' met council in particularly this is not staff any more that <br />we are dealing with. We are dealing with the people that <br />are going to make the recommendations. This is a <br />subcommittee to the Met Council. I don't think we have to <br />continue this argument outside of these chambers. We are <br />the ones that have the responsibility to come to a <br />resolution and I was hoping that was what we were going to <br />do today. I thought that was the purpose of your request -- <br />of what constitutes our comp plan. I don't think making <br />these comments although that would be satisfying to you <br />personally would do anything to further our position with <br />the Met Council. <br />Dick Johnson: I mentioned at the last meeting when you <br />brought this up that the most important part of a comp plan <br />is the Future Land Use Map, but I think with this letter you <br />have taken this issue out of the city and already put it <br />into an arena outside of the city. <br />If Councilman Williams had not made this motion, I was <br />prepared to support a similar letter that would go out and <br />state what the majority of this council's opinion is and <br />what we felt the vote was made to approve the 1990-2010 comp <br />plan. When I go back and look at that, even though you took <br />out the word "supercedes", it is very clear to me that <br />document represents the comp plan of the City. I think this <br />kind of thing just adds confusion to the Met Council in our <br />efforts. I couldn't believe when I read this letter that <br />you would be wiling to impair our efforts, and I believe <br />this is impairing our efforts to get the MUSA Extension. I <br />have to support what Councilman Williams stated. <br />Mayor Johnson: What will impair our efforts is our comments <br />like this that are read in a public forum and I then have to <br />refute them at the same public forum. I will not accept <br />this. If you say it is the city's position that this is the <br />comp plan, I will state at that very same meeting, <br />uninquevocably the City's position is not that. There are <br />two members that do not agree. There is no purpose to <br />reading this thing aloud. <br />Councilman Hunt: The comp plan that was prepared and <br />submitted to the Met Council was submitted to them as a <br />replacement. That is the way they reviewed it. That is the <br />way the resolution read to adopt it. All through the entire <br />process it was made clear to the Met council that this is <br />the direction. This was done before you two were on the <br />Council. In order to have changed that you would have had <br />to pass a motion, the majority of the council, voting in <br />favor to say-- we need to change our submission and we need <br />to modify our submission and say no, take this document too <br />and review them together. The review would have been <br />completely different. It is clear from their review that <br />