Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />vanance <br />requestor a minor subdivisIOn directly to the City Council and <br />their lack of relationship. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing opined that, while public notice was not <br />required, he felt that in all fairness, the Council was obligated to <br />provide notice to meet the public's reasonable explanations. <br /> <br />Mr. Wall argued that the Council needed to be aware of the <br />expectations of the applicants as well. <br /> <br />Further discussion ensued. <br /> <br />Councilmember Maschka opined that the City Council had no <br />discretion in rescinding its previous action and granting the <br />minor subdivision, as per current code, and changes to policy <br />needed to be handled separately. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson concurred with Councilmember <br />Maschka's comments and for further clarification, provided a <br />bench handout, showing case law from the Minnesota Court of <br />Appeals in PTL, LLC, Realtor v. the Chisago County Board of <br />Commissioner (No. C5-02-ll70) for City Council review. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing noted that, while he had recused himself from <br />voting on May 10, 2004 due to perceived conflict of interest, in <br />further consultation with the City Attorney's office, that office <br />had reiterated that there was no statutory, City Ethics Ordinance, <br />or Code of Ethics for City Officials conflict evidenced. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan referenced Council discretion noted in <br />several sections of the City's Ordinance (11 04.04) related <br />platting variations and minor subdivisions as they addressed <br />unnecessary hardship and the purpose of platting, and questioned <br />City Attorney Anderson on whether language in Section 1101.01 <br />was permission. Councilmember Ihlan noted that, if the item <br />were to be reconsidered, those would be the issues she would <br />consider: the Council's purposes of platting and hardship <br />determinations. <br />