Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council Regular Meeting - 06/14/04 <br />Minutes - Page 21 <br /> <br />had already established precedent in other land use issues; and <br />that every application was unique in some way and stood on its <br />own merits. Mr. Anderson noted that the Council has broad <br />discretion by Minnesota State Statute and the Court would <br />determine the merits of Council decisions based on whether the <br />Council was basing their decisions on concrete law or by <br />whimsy. Mr. Anderson encouraged Councilmembers that, once <br />they'd adopted an ordinance, they were duty bound to look at <br />what the ordinance established as standards. Mr. Anderson <br />advised that, if the Council didn't like the ordinance, they could <br />choose to amend it; and by virtue of discussions prompted by <br />this request, it may be prudent to do so. <br /> <br />Councilmember Maschka summarized that the City Council <br />needed to apply the law of the land as it stood today; and revisit <br />the ordinance at a later time for possible amendments. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson concurred with Councilmember <br />Maschka's summary; advising that once the rules were made, the <br />Council was duty-bound to enforce them. Mr. Anderson referred <br />to previous case law provided by him to Councilmembers related <br />to similar land use litigation (e.g., PPL vs. Chisago County). <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing responded to the comments of Mr. Greg Larson, <br />recognizing that this process was not "our finest moment," but <br />didn't concur that the process was improper. Mayor Klausing <br />reviewed his consultations with other attorney peers related to <br />conflict of interest allegations; and the nature of local <br />government affecting numerous people known by <br />Councilmembers. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan addressed her perception of larger policy <br />issues that were involved in this request that she would like to <br />revisit. Councilmember Ihlan noted that she remained in <br />opposition to this request and would not be changing her vote <br />from her May 10, 2004 vote; and reviewed her rationale and <br />findings for the record: 1) concerns that the lot does not meet <br />setback requirements, and her interpretation of the ordinance <br />related to pre-existing setback provisions for house and lot line <br />restrictions; 2) hardship language cited in the subdivision <br />ordinance, Section 1104.04; 3) concerns about the character of <br />