5.4. SR 05-17-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BRIGGS ANA MORGAN City of Ell: River .Planning Commission May l 1, 201 {} Page 3 clearly visible ti•om 221. st Avenue and, potentially, the residential areas to the west, for an extended period of time." 5!7!10 City Staff Repoz•t at 4 ! (3). Rather, it is undisputed that the 13-acre landfill expansion would not: disturb the portion of the 8.6-acre "buffer" area which is within 200 feet of the railroad bed on the west and «•ithin 200 feet o:f I-lwy. 169 on the east. And the trees in the middle area of the "buffer" which will be affected by die landfill expansion would clearly not be screening either "221st Avenue," let alone the "residential areas to the west." At mast; the trees which will be "remov[ed]" from the middle area of the "buffer" provide screening to but a portion of the adjacent 109-acre SDA which is already (1) within the ME Overlay District, (2) permitted for mining and (3) substantially disturbed by mining activities. Second, any further destruction ofd the "buffer" area will be pursuant to "filler's mining operations therein, not ERL's proposed. landh_lling after the mining. City cannot in good faith ignore Tiller's contemporaneously submitted mining CUP application far the 8.6-acre "buffer" area, pazticzzl:~z-ly given that it has no legitimate basis to deny this mining application. And., third, City's concern with screening can (and thus must) be addressed by CUPiLicense conditions rattler than a denial.. 7'risko, Sfi61vT.W.2d at 357; I~eit US.9, Inc., 2009 VdL 605722; at *4. 3. City's concern with landfill components being purported located outside of the SWF Overlay District and into the adjacent 1.09-acre SDA is barred by C'ity's representations to the courts Statements in its previous pleadings are binding on City; and they are considered judicial admissions. See .Knud..sen v. titzited States, 254 1° .3d 747, 752 (8th Cir. 2001); Pnstscr°iiat Enters. v. Cin~ of Bridgetnn, 905 F.2d 223, 227-28 {8th Cir. 1990) (treating statements by parties made in briefs as judicial admission). City is otherwise bound by the representations of its counsel. .See Burner Ser~Jice & C'nmbu.stion Contrnls C'a. v. City of t1~linneapolis•, 312 Minn. 104, 113, 250 N.W.2d 224, 229 (1.977) (city bound by stipulation entered into by city att.orney); see alsn Link v. LT'ahash R.R. Cn., 370 U.S. 626, 633-34, reh'g a'er7ied, 371 tJ.S. 873 (1962). On April 28, 2010, City's counsel repeated the following same highlighted. representation three times to the Minnesota Court of Appeals: In this setting, the district court's declaz•ation that [ERL] "is entitled to proceed v,~ith its proposed expansion" appears to either [{1}] compel the City to legalize [ERL's] 2009 proposed expansion, or [(2}] prohibits the City from enforcing its la1vs against that expansion. 7'he parties agreed below that [ERL] needed to secure at least a rezoning of the SDA in order to lawfully use that area for landfilling. [ERL] applied not. just for a rezoning but also for a reguiding of the SDA., which the City and the MPCA in the EIS concluded was also required. The