09-06-94 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 Niles referred to 2nd paragraph, second page, where Mr. Filla talks about the action that has been taken by the city since the District Court's order and talks about amendment of the 1979 comp plan to create the 1990 amendment to the comp plan. Niles stated, "If you look at the 1990 amendments to the comp plan, you will see on the first page the dates of adoption and action of the plan believed by the time Judge Doyscher issued its order of July, 1991. All of the steps necessary to adopt have been taken by the city with the exception of final Met Co. approval which took place in early 1992. My understanding is that those proceedings and what the city was doing were known to Judge Doyscher at the time he issued the order and that by virtue of that, courts usually don't issue orders that are gong to be moot before they put their 'John Hancock' on the signature line. Our position is that Mr. Filla is incorrect there and the court was apprised of the changes that were going on with the comp plan at the time he issued the order. We understand Judge Doyscher may be the one that has to clarify that eventually." Mayor John felt that Judge Doyscher's order clearly states that Federal Land may submit their application under the 1979 plan. That the current proposal is very different from that proposed by Federal Land in 1980. Therefore, the city does not consider the current proposal, which did not exist at the time of Judge Doyscher's order, has to be considered under the 1979 comp plan. The application should then be considered under the 1990 comp plan. Councilman Mottaz was inclined to go along with Federal Land on with what the judge said. We are going to have to go back to the judge and ask him what he meant. He did not say that they must submit their original plan, but he said they are allowed to submit an application. The judge has to realize after 12 years a lot of things have changed. Mottaz is inclined to think that the judge meant that they could resubmit an application based on the rules in our comp plan of 1979. Attorney Filla explained that at the last meeting the applicant clearly asked the city to consider this on a dual track and that is why I was asked to make some comments. One way to get this to the court is to make a decision regarding the application to the 1979 version of comp plan. If that decision is to review it in that manner, you proceed along that track. If your decision is not to review it in that manner, then you've made a decision. The second request is to review the application consistent with the 1990 version which would require a public hearing before the PZ. If the city were to approve an amendment to the plan and then the application and a rezoning, we will never find out what the court would say because there will not be an appeal because the property owner would be satisfied with the city's decision. If the decision is to deny the request in light of the 1990 comp plan, at that point the property owner has two decisions of the council relating to the same issue. There was a request to try to handle this in a manner if necessary to get us to court one time review all the issues instead of two separate lawsuits, one 1979 plan and one 1990 plan.