08-16-94 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 16, 1994 recognize that you may disagree and the city may agree with your recommendation and also disagree with that position. In recognizing that you disagree whether Mr. Colon has the right to consideration under the 1979 plan, we have an alternative request for consideration of an amendment to the 1990 comp plan to allow for this property to be rezoned from RR to HB to accommodate this development proposal.' Attorney Filla commented, "I think that is a request for a dual track review of the application." Mayor John explained that In the event the city considers your application under the 1979 comp plan and in the event that it is rejected under the 1979 plan, it then moves forward to be considered under the 1990 plan. Attorney Niles, "I believe that would be acceptable to Mr. Colon". Mayor John, "Would that be acceptable to Mr. Filla?" Attorney Filla, "Yes, Deal." Attorney Niles commented that the problem they are trying to avoid is if we don't get approval under the 1979 plan do we then have to pull the trigger on litigation in order not to waive any rights while the application is processed under the 1990 comp plan. The reasons we proposed it the way we did was specifically designed so that if the city is inclined to grant the request one way or another we don't end up in any litigation. M/S/P Mottaz/John - to table until the September 6, 1994 council meeting in order to furnish the council all information in advance of meeting that our legal counsel feels is required to them to make an informed decision; such as the booklet submitted with the 1994 application, copy of the 1980 application, Judge Doyscher's decision and attorney Filla's comments as to the authority of the council and how they can proceed to determine which they wish to do. (Motion passed 5-0). Attorney Filla requested that all meeting tapes be kept on which this matter is discussed. B. Hammes Sand & Gravel Recommendation from PZ on Mining Attorney Filla pointed out at a meeting this year with Mr. Voss, Gleekel, Hammes representatives, and city staff, it was indicated that we would be given ideas of a way in which this matter could be controlled without opening other Agricultural parcels for this use in the City. As of this date, we have yet to see this proposal. This is more than jusl amending the CUP to allow what is now an illegal use on the Hammes' site. Jerry Duffy, John Voss, and Kirsten Rojina, representatives on behalf of Hammes, explained the Hammes operation is far enough away to alleviate concerns about noise levels and dust. On -site recycling of road material is common and sand and gravel operations already have equipment in place to do the recycling. It makes sense that