CC_Minutes_2008_0825 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 25, 2008 Page 19 Mayor Klausing sought an opinion from City Attorney Anderson as to whether the applicant was required to seek final plat approval within 60-days from ap- proval of the preliminary plat. City Attorney Anderson noted that this is the first time this issue has been ad- dressed, but that in his initial review, it appears that Councilmember Ihlan's inter- pretation of City Ordinance related to submission of a final plat or request by the applicant for anextension -neither of which had occurred -under Subdivision provisions of City Code, indicated some inconsistencies. Mr. Anderson advised that he would need to do further research on Code provisions when the original application was submitted, changes to Code in March of 2008, and definition of "null" and "void" and whether the process would need to be started again. Discussion ensued as to what, if any action to take this evening based on these in- consistencies, or whether action should be tabled; with the next available City Council meeting scheduled for September 8, 2008. Councilmember Pust opined that land use actions and motions were taken in serial order, not as separate discussions; and questioned implications to the City in con- sidering any action at this time, other than to deny or table. Councilmember Roe noted the timing of the original 60-day review period, and extension with a September 6, 2008 deadline; and noted that if action was not taken by September 6~`, the City Council had de facto approved the application. City Attorney Anderson addressed a case currently before the Minnesota Supreme Court related to the 60-day rule and whether it applied to plat approvals; and reit- erated his request for further research on apparent inconsistencies between City Code, Title 11 and Title 1008; expressing concern in the City Council needed to take into consideration the 60-day rule as well. Alex Hall, representing United Properties for this project, advised that they were willing to agree to a waiver of the 60-days for final review. City Attorney Anderson advised that such action needed to be recorded in to- night's minutes, as well as confirmed in writing by the applicant; with the appli- cant waiving the final review indefinitely or for a certain period of time; and sug- gested 30-days minimum for additional review and research. Alex Hall, United Properties Mr. Hall clarified that the City was asking the applicant to waive the 60-day re- view period so as not to involve automatic approval of the project without going through the process.