11-15-94 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 15, 1994 Don Niles, attorney for Martin Colon, stated, "we believe that this proposal should be considered under the 1979 comp plan. Everything in the record to -date show that this proposal is entirely consistent with the 1979 comp plan and the Highway Business ordinance. We believe that the Planning Commission and planner failed to recognize that much of the policy applied in the 1990 comp plan is no longer valid in the sense that much of the commercial development area has been annexed to the city of Oakdale. There is a specific statement in the land use policy under the 1990 comp plan that states 'in order for the comp plan to remain a legitimate guide for growth and decision making that it should be looked at preferably annually'. It is our belief that has not been done for some time." Niles explained "there were numerous land use issues raised at the Planning Commission level relating to existing noise levels, that we have presented evidence to make the site unsuitable for the type of development that the planner and Planning Commission are telling us should be built"on this site. There has been nothing put intc the record relating to this specific site and why the site is suitable for this proposal. That being the gravel mine to the north, the ultra light airfield to the west and the high tension power lines to the north and the fact that it is bordered by one major interstate highway and a county road which was built for large traffic purposes. The benefit to the city is significant and in the material given shows the tax benefits. At the Planning Commission meeting in October land use questions were raised and we were asked to address. The matter was then postponed by the Planning Commission for Flying J and Mr. Colon to respond to those issues. Materials were submitted in response to those issues on November 8,1994. At the Planning Commission meeting, it was readily apparent and recognized that the Planning Commission had not reviewed those materials and they really didn't care that those had been submitted. At this point those materials had not been considered by anyone in making a policy decision." Administrator Kueffner indicated the Planning Commission agenda packet was ready to go when the additional submittals were hand delivered to us on November 8 and they did not get reviewed by our planner or city engineer.. M/S/P Mottaz/Johnson - to table this item until the December 6, 1994 council meeting for the city council to review the packet of material received on November 8 and direct the staff to review the same information and report back to the City Council. (Motion passed 5-0). Filla commented that the city code states the city council has 60 days to come to a decision on this matter after the city council receives a report from the Planning Commission which would be 60 days from November 15, 1994.