Minutes - Council - 06/13/2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1. That the Council violated rule 9.03.04.sub2.N. which states: "If, upon receiving the reports and recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Council finds that specific inconsistencies exist in the review process and thus the final recommendation of the Council will differ from that of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Council may, before taking final action, refer the matter back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for further consideration. The Council shall provide the Planning and Zoning Commission with a written statement detailing the specific reasons for the referral." Mr. Hanson stated the use of the word "may" in the context of this ordinance refers to the term 'before taking final action', meaning that the Council could take final action if it upholds the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. In his opinion, it cannot be taken to mean that the Council is free to reverse the Findings of Fact, only that it can find inconsistencies in the review process. The ordinance states the Council must find specific inconsistencies exist in the review process, which in this case the Council did not do. The true nature of this ordinance can be seen in its final portion which states that such referral back to the Planning and Zoning Commission can only occur once. 2. Further, the City Attorney had directed the Council that although they were free to hear additional information, that only information provided from the public hearing could be considered regarding the Findings of Fact. In the background information regarding Case #6, this objection was noted and indicated that the City Attorney would respond, which they are still waiting for that response. 3. In ordinance 9.03.04.sub2.L. it states that: "Upon completion of the report and recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the request for a conditional use permit shall be placed on the agenda for the next regular Council meeting occurring no sooner than ten days after the final action of the Planning and Zoning Commission on the request." Mr. Hanson noted that again the Council violated the City Code and heard this matter after only five days from the date of the Planning and Zoning meeting. In his opinion, that means that the Council has not legally granted the conditional use permit. 4. City Code 9.14.05 Information Required states: "the applicant shall provide to the City three copies of all information submitted to MPCA for pre-application and application requirements for permits outlined in MR 7001." Mr. Hanson has checked with the MPCA office and no permits or pre-permits have been submitted, therefore, he felt this information could not have been provided to the City as required for the conditional use permit process. 5. In City Code 9.14.06.e Prohibited Locations for Construction and Operation of Solid Waste Management Facilities (which facilities are defined by MN Statute 7035.2525 as all facilities that treat, transfer, store, process, or dispose of solid waste). Section 8 prohibits location "Within 1,000 feet of the nearest edge of any state, federal or interstate highway or the boundary of a public park or an occupied dwelling." Mr. Hanson conducted a quick examination of the site map which shows that even the transfer building is to be within 900 feet of the mobile homes located in the trailer park. It is also within 1,000 feet of the Highway #10 right-of-way. City Council/June 13, 2000 Page 4 of 26