Laserfiche WebLink
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 5 <br />Attorney Niles added he was also satisfied with the draft minutes of the Lake Elmo City <br />Council of August 16,1994 recollecting his statements and request. <br />Attorney Filla pointed out if the property owner's request is a dual track, we should try <br />and break this down and make a decision on track one. One of the things you don't <br />want to do is to send it to the Planning Commission asking them to review the <br />application once under the 1979 comp plan and then once under the 1990 plan. That's <br />going to become very confusing. We want to end up with a clear record so that if <br />someone who is asked to review this ultimate decision understands what the council <br />did and its reasons for acting. <br />Council member Conlin referred to the Summons document, Article XVII, Item 3. where <br />Federal Land is asking for a judgment permanently enjoining the defendant from <br />interfering with plaintiffs' use of their land as proposed in their application of October <br />17,1980. She understands that to be Federal Land asking the court to have the city not <br />interfere with their use of the land as proposed in their application of October 17,1980. <br />It very clearly shows their intention was for that application and not some future <br />application. Conlin concurred with the Mayor and supported the City Administrator's <br />decision to reject this application because it was vague and confusing. Conlin made <br />the following motion: <br />M/S/P Conlin/Johnson - to not proceed to review this matter under the 1979 comp plan <br />because it is the findings of this council that the 1994 application is substantially <br />different in scope than the 1980 application, and that further, it is the city's opinion that <br />the District Court limited the Federal Land Co. option to a resubmittal of the 1980 <br />application. It is the city's opinion that the court order did not prevent the city from <br />adopting a 1990 comp plan which is now the basis for application review. So if the <br />applicant wishes to proceed, the city will accept the application and review it pursuant <br />to the standards of the 1990 comp plan. (Motion passed 4-1:Mottaz:we are reading <br />things into the judge's one sentence statement and there are several sentences now <br />saying what the judge said. I don't think the 1990 version of the comp plan was <br />adopted until December 1992.). <br />Attorney Filla commented, "His letter simply indicates that since the District Court order, <br />the city has taken relevant action in adopting a new plan or revision to that old plan. He <br />didn't specify when that occurred and could have occurred after the District Court order. <br />Part of it did, in fact, occur after the District Court order. What I meant in that <br />paragraph is it doesn't make any difference when it occurred. It occurred before the <br />submittal of the 1993 or 1994 application. Since there has been some indication that <br />we may be heading for another review of this decision, I suggest that it would be a <br />good idea to verbatim express in the minutes the comments that were made by the <br />council. The city council should make some statement on whether you are directing the <br />staff to process the application pursuant to the 1990 version of the comp plan and <br />direct that this matter go to the Planning Commission for that purpose." <br />