Laserfiche WebLink
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 <br />Attorney Niles voiced his concern that the application be processed "as is" on the <br />merits without Mr. Colon being forced to waive any of his rights. Niles stated, "What I <br />heard was a motion to deny processing the application or consideration under the 197C <br />comp plan. Our request is for the application to be processed "as is" on the merits and <br />we are leaving it up to you to make your decision as the board of adjustments how that <br />would take place and we will take appropriate next action depending on what the <br />council actions are." <br />At the last meeting Attorney Filla thought it was clear that there was a request of the <br />city to process the application under the 1979 plan and under the 1990 plan. That is <br />what he responded to in his letter and what Mr. Niles had agreed to. Filla stated, "All <br />the city has done is indicate to the property owner that for reasons stated they chose <br />not to process this application under the 1979 comp plan, but if the property owner <br />wishes we will process it under the 1990 plan. We need to be very clear on what we <br />are doing here rather than proceeding to process this 'application' which contains <br />different language in it according to its merits. We are trying to identify the issues here <br />and deal with them and not leave this to some vague form so that some body that <br />reviews this in the future understands what we are doing and the reasons for doing <br />this." <br />Attorney Niles believed Mr. Filla raised issues that are not there. Niles stated, "He <br />thought Mr. Filla's description earlier about what the city's options were adequate: you <br />could decide to review the application under the 1979 plan and decide not to do that, <br />you could decide to review it under the 1990 version." Filla said, "if the application is <br />processed under the 1990 comp plan amendment plan and it is approved we will never <br />know the answer to what Judge Doyscher meant by his order because it will be moot." <br />Niles believed that was accurate if the application is ultimately denied. Then maybe we <br />will have the opportunity to do that. It is our hope that we will only have to go back to <br />Judge Doyscher once or not at all. In our view the appropriate action would be to the <br />council to cast a second resolution directing the PZ to consider the application under <br />the 1990 comp plan. <br />Councilman Johnson commented the City ordinance states if we accept the submission <br />of the application and the council has denied acceptance of the application based on <br />the 1979 comp plan the only other options to accept it is on the basis of the 1990 comp <br />plan. According to the motion, Johnson explained, "the application will go to the PZ <br />unless they withdraw their application. They have withdrawn their application before <br />when it was based on the 1990 comp plan. We are exactly in the same position we <br />were a half a year ago. If they are consistent with their previous actions, they will <br />withdraw it again. So there is some indecision as to whether we should direct the PZ to <br />hold a Public Hearing. We are required by ordinance now to hold a public hearing <br />based on this motion and your application and the hearing would be held on the <br />application based on the 1990 comp plan." <br />