My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
04/26/1971 Council Minutes
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1971
>
04/26/1971 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/17/2014 12:39:07 PM
Creation date
12/17/2014 11:12:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
04/26/1971
Council Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />4/26/71 <br />Also, eonstdeting the way in which the Metro people walk through the crowd, he <br />wondered what they would do to W. He noted that S.F. 1237 would be heard again <br />on Wednesday at 9 A.M. <br />9 <br />Mr. L'/killer agreed that there had been a good turnout at the Saturday meeting, the <br />representation from here was better than from anywhere else, noting also that Rep." <br />Albertson feels that the only people opposing the bill are from Lino Lakes. W. <br />L'Allier stated that he had testified at the Saturday hearing and had done so <br />previously in the House. He noted that the House bill had passed out of sub - <br />committee to a full House committee, but that our area representatives feel that <br />we may have a "hook" on the bill since the White Bear Representative may be able <br />to trap it in committee. W. Bohjanen stated that all bills must be out of committee <br />by the 30th of April; he noted that we have made an impact on the people,,that <br />three busloads of people from Independence and one frown Lake Elmo had attended the <br />Saturday session. Mr. L'Allier noted that the Washington County Board had gone on <br />record opposing the bills as had the Anoka County.Board also. <br />Mr. L'Allier noted that suburban legislators,had voted down the bills but that <br />those from Hennepin and Ramsey.counties had voted for them. He feels that if the <br />bills come to a floor vote the outstate legislators will determine the outcome. <br />He thought it was good that everyone concerned were making their feelings known, <br />that they should keep after the legislators. <br />Mr, Bohjanen mentioned that both the House and the Senate had amendments from the <br />Inter County Council sponsored jointly by the seven county committees; however, <br />Roger Scherer and Stan Thorup had been unsuccessful in getting them passed. Mr. <br />Bohjanen noted that if one of the Senate committeemen had not walked out of the <br />meeting instead of voting on the amendment, the vote could have tied. However, <br />Sen. Thorup had no chance in his committee. <br />Mr. L'Allier stated that he had talked with Bruce Nawrocki, Mayor of Columbia . <br />Heights who is on the Metro Section of the League of Minnesota Municipalities, had <br />been working in conjunction with the Inter County Council on drafting bills. W. <br />L'Allier had copies of amendments to H.F. 1678 for the audience. <br />Mr. L'Allier reported that he had testified last Tuesday before the Senate Claims <br />Committee eoncerning.our claim to the State for reimbursement for policing time at <br />he Youth Center. There had been no opposition by the State. Be noted that a <br />House hearing on the same subject would be held the following day at 10 A.M.; he <br />expected no opposition there either. <br />Mr. Locher stated.that he had checked over the Apitz legal description and that the <br />legal given in Ord. 6T would be what Mr. Apitz wants. W. Locher read the wording <br />he had drafted for,adding service station usage to that usage given in Ord. 6T. <br />This was agreeable. <br />Mr. Locher read the letter to Mr, Godfrey Love.of Butler concerning the possibility <br />of future sewer service in the Youth Center, which he had written in conjunction <br />with Mr. Gotwald. <br />W. Locher mentioned the Zoning Classification Code Ordinance and read the <br />definitions listed on Ord, 6 on buildings. He noted that on Page 48 of the Code <br />Mr. Van Housen had suggested three acres as minimum size for a farm; the P&Z had <br />felt the size should be kept at five acres. Also, that the minimum frontage for a <br />five acre lot should be 300 feet. He noted the reference to Ord. 52 on fees stating <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.