09-06-94 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 5 Attorney Niles added he was also satisfied with the draft minutes of the Lake Elmo City Council of August 16,1994 recollecting his statements and request. Attorney Filla pointed out if the property owner's request is a dual track, we should try and break this down and make a decision on track one. One of the things you don't want to do is to send it to the Planning Commission asking them to review the application once under the 1979 comp plan and then once under the 1990 plan. That's going to become very confusing. We want to end up with a clear record so that if someone who is asked to review this ultimate decision understands what the council did and its reasons for acting. Council member Conlin referred to the Summons document, Article XVII, Item 3. where Federal Land is asking for a judgment permanently enjoining the defendant from interfering with plaintiffs' use of their land as proposed in their application of October 17,1980. She understands that to be Federal Land asking the court to have the city not interfere with their use of the land as proposed in their application of October 17,1980. It very clearly shows their intention was for that application and not some future application. Conlin concurred with the Mayor and supported the City Administrator's decision to reject this application because it was vague and confusing. Conlin made the following motion: M/S/P Conlin/Johnson - to not proceed to review this matter under the 1979 comp plan because it is the findings of this council that the 1994 application is substantially different in scope than the 1980 application, and that further, it is the city's opinion that the District Court limited the Federal Land Co. option to a resubmittal of the 1980 application. It is the city's opinion that the court order did not prevent the city from adopting a 1990 comp plan which is now the basis for application review. So if the applicant wishes to proceed, the city will accept the application and review it pursuant to the standards of the 1990 comp plan. (Motion passed 4-1:Mottaz:we are reading things into the judge's one sentence statement and there are several sentences now saying what the judge said. I don't think the 1990 version of the comp plan was adopted until December 1992.). Attorney Filla commented, "His letter simply indicates that since the District Court order, the city has taken relevant action in adopting a new plan or revision to that old plan. He didn't specify when that occurred and could have occurred after the District Court order. Part of it did, in fact, occur after the District Court order. What I meant in that paragraph is it doesn't make any difference when it occurred. It occurred before the submittal of the 1993 or 1994 application. Since there has been some indication that we may be heading for another review of this decision, I suggest that it would be a good idea to verbatim express in the minutes the comments that were made by the council. The city council should make some statement on whether you are directing the staff to process the application pursuant to the 1990 version of the comp plan and direct that this matter go to the Planning Commission for that purpose."