02/06/90 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

county, ci[y, or town land use control shall permit development which has not been approved ~y the (metro) council, nor shall any county, city or town sanction or approve any subdi'4sion, permit, license or other authorization which would allow development to occur whicflh has not been approved by the (metro) council." Mark Banwart stated that on the basis df the State Statute, City Staff has determined that it would be inappropriate to prepare proposed findings of fact and conditional use permit prior to Waste Management receiving f~prmal approval of the proposed project from the Metro Council. The letter dated February 2~, 1990 is a re-interpretation of the term 'development' by a Metro Council staff person wh~h conflicts with the intent of the State Statute. Mark Ban~vart then referred to Minnesota Statute 426.3595, Conditional Use Permits, Subdivision.~-' 1, Authority, which states: "The governing body may by ordinance designate certain tyfles of developments, including planned unit developments, and certain land developme~ t activities as conditional uses under zoning regulations. Conditional uses may be approv{ul by the governing body or other designated authority by a showing by the applicant/hat the standards and criteria stated in the ordinance will be satisifed. The standards ~nd criteria shall include both general requirements for all conditional uses, and insofar as l~racticable, requirements specific to each designated conditional use." Based on llhe two statutes, Mark Banwart summarized that the City has the authority to designate pertain types of development as requiting conditional use permits; and Ramsey cannot an~ should not approve a conditional use permit for development or development activities n the area of Site P or it's buffer unless Metro Council has approved it beforehant Mark Ba?'?art noted that State Legislature has directed Metro Council to develop criteria for defining d :velopment'; the interpretation of 'development' reflected in Metro Council staff letter date{i February 2 may be an indication of what they are recommending as criteria but it is not wltat Minnesota Statute says. Before an opinion by a Metro Council staff person becomes fi ct and law, it has to be approved by Metro Council and State Legislature. Mark Ban~art reiterated Staff's recommendation that the request for a conditional use permit be ~bled because it would be inappropriate and unlawful to proceed until such time as Waste i~lanagement has received formal Metro Council and Anoka County approval. Mark Ban~Vart noted that he was the technician that managed the Hennepin County compost project an~ that he has talked with Waste Management's site engineer and pointed out a litany of ir~dequacies in their proposal. Chairman,iZimmerman read the letter from Metropolitan Council staff person, Thomas Caswell, d)ated February 2, 1990, out loud. Chairman Zimmerman stated that he spoke to Thomas Gaswell on the phone and has been reassured that the letter was written as intended.' Mark Ban~art reiterated that the letter reflects the opinion of a Metro Council staff person, not what Ssate Statute says. Commissi~)ner Hendriksen stated that it would be inconsistent to criticize City Staff for expoundir/4g their recommendation over that of the Planning and Zoning Commission and then have ~the Commission accept the opinion of a Metro Council staff person over the authority df the Metro Council board. Planning & Zoning Commission/February 6, 1990 Page 6 of 8