Laserfiche WebLink
Warren E, Peterson PE-T `RSQ T <br />Jerome P. Witt <br />Trlla .___.._.______ ___ ... A_-_�___.-__.._ <br />Daniel Witt Tram 7—����1, � � --7---�-----^•-7��- ,,ii 7� <br />Glenn A.Bergman <br />FR 11V1.'�,.-a;• BERGMAN <br />LA �T <br />John Michael Miller l LLJJi� \,.1.t V 1L it V <br />Timothy 1. Hassett' <br />Michael T. oberle <br />Kenneth A. Amdahl <br />September 2, 1994 <br />Mary Kueffner <br />City Administrator <br />City of Lake Elmo <br />3800 Laverne Avenue North <br />Lake Elmo, MN 55042 <br />RE: Federal Land Development Proposal <br />Our File No.: 11150/930006 <br />Mary: <br />Suite 300 <br />50 East Fifth Street <br />St. Paul, MN 55101-1197 <br />(612) 291-8955 <br />(612) 228-1753 facsimile <br />Melvin J. Silver, of Counsel <br />By correspondence dated April 7, 1987, the Federal Land <br />Company submitted a Development Proposal for the northwest quadrant <br />of Interstate 94 and County Road 19. Federal Land Company simply <br />attached a copy of the 1980 Development Proposal to a 1987 <br />Application Form. <br />On September 1, 1987, the Lake Elmo City Council adopted <br />Resolution No. 87-46 denying the Federal Land Company's request for <br />approval for a Planned Unit Development because the City found that <br />the proposal was inconsistent with the City's development policies <br />as contained in its 1979 and 1986 Comprehensive Plans. <br />On February 23, 1988, the City was sued by the Federal Land <br />Company. Attached to the Complaint as Exhibit B was a copy of the <br />1980 Development Proposal. The Complaint states that in 1987, the <br />Federal Land Company requested the City to reconsider the 1980 <br />application and requested the Court to require the City to allow <br />Federal Land Company to use their land as proposed in their 1980 <br />Application. <br />In its Amended Order dated July 9, 1991, the District Court <br />states that the Federal Land Company is entitled to resubmit their <br />application to the City for consideration under the 1979 <br />Compre ensive Plan. Based upon the content of the 1987 <br />Application, the content of the pleadings contained in the Federal <br />Land Company's Complaint and on the content of the District Court's <br />Order of February 2, 1991, it is my opinion that the District Court <br />clearly limited the Federal Land Company's option to a resubmittal <br />of the 1980 Development Application. Any other interpretation is <br />only possible if you assume that the Court intended to grant more <br />relief than was requested by the Federal Land Company. <br />•REAL PROPERLY LAW SPECIALIST. CERTIFIED BY 1'HE REAL PROPERTY LAW SECTION OF'THE MINNESOTASTATE BAR ASSOCIA116N. <br />