INFORMATION #4 07-22-2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

William C. Griffith, Jr. July 22, 2002 Page 2 DRAFT 2002 TEP meeting. The TEP therefore recommended denial of the Development to the City Council. On June 14 and 17, 2002, city staff had conversations with Tollefson regarding the recommendations of denial from the Planning Commission and the TEP and the upcoming City Council meeting on the evening of June 17, 2002. Tollefson was advised that the Development could go ahead to the City Council with recommendations of denial · from the Planning Commission, TEP and staff; or the Development could be continued to the Council's next planning agenda, on July 15, 2002, to allow for the submission of revised plans to address the Planning Commission and TEP issues. Tollefson indicated it preferred the matter be continued, and was advised that such a request would have to be made in writing. The enclosed letter from Tollefson was received by fax during the day on June 17, 2002. In its letter, Tollefson indicates that it is "in the process of finishing up the revisions to our plans for Twin Lakes Crossing", and requests that the City "please continue consideration of our pending request for rezoning and preliminary plat approval to the next earliest possible date with the city council." In response to this request, the City Council opened the public hearing on the development at its regular meeting on June 17, 2002, and continued the public hearing to its next planning agenda on July 15, 2002. City staff continued to discuss the Development with Tollefson following the June 17, 2002 City Council meeting, and advised Tollefson that its request for a continuance had been granted and that the Development had been continued to the next planning agenda on July 15, 2002. In addition, the written minutes of the June 17, 2002 Council meeting specifically state that the public hearing on the' Development is continued to July 15, 2002. (See enclosed copy of page 7 of the minutes of the June 17, 2002 Elk River City Council meeting.) These written minutes were distributed to the public and approved by the City Council at its June 24, 2002 meeting, prior to the expiration of 60 days from April 30, 2002. In your letter of July 15, 2002, you state that the Development has been approved by operation of law because the City Council did not act on it, "at the next meeting, June 24, 2002". However, Tollefson did not request that consideration be continued to the next City Council meeting. Tollefson requested that consideration be continued to the "next earliest possible date with the city council". Tollefson was advised prior to making this request that the next date for City Council consideration of planning items was July 15, 2002, and that this was the date the item would be continued to. Following the granting of its request for a continuance, Tollefson was advised of the continuance and the date to which the Development had been continued. This information was also published in the written minutes of the City Council. All of this occurred within the sixty-day period mandated by Minnesota Statutes, Section 15.99.