05-15-2004 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 18, 2004 7 M/S/P DeLapp/Johnston – to approve the firm Short, Elliot, Hendrickson to prepare the City Trails System Plan per their proposal dated April 2, 2004, as recommended by the Parks Commission. Further, that the Mayor and City Administrator are authorized and directed to enter into a contract with SEH for Trails Plan preparation services. (Motion passed 3-0). D. Fence Moratorium Planner Dillerud reported at the May 10, 2004 workshop, the City Council discussed modifications to the existing fence regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. Dillerud provided a summary of what he believed to be general direction of the Council to staff and the Planning Commission from the discussion notes, and the graphics placed on the board during the Workshop. The Council concurred with the summary responses. Don Gustafson, Tablyn Park resident, said he doesn’t like fences, but is surrounded by fences. He never worried about the property line and the homeowner saying you cannot play there. He suggested the City require a survey if a fence is being built. M/S/P Johnston/DeLapp – to direct the city planner to take the information contained in staff memo dated May 13, 2004 to the Planning Commission for a public hearing on a draft zoning ordinance amendment. (Motion passed 3-0). The Council discussed adopting a Fence Moratorium for fence construction in the City until the council can determine what it wants its new fence ordinance to state. M/S/P Johnston/DeLapp – to modify Ordinance No. 97-129, Item D. Add “except for those fences required by the State Building Code for safety purposes.” (Motion passed 3- 0). M/S/P Johnston/DeLapp – to adopt Ordinance No. 97-129, as modified, An Ordinance Adopting a Development Moratorium Relating to the Construction of Fences. (Motion passed 3-0). E. Variance Performance Process Planner Dillerud reported State Statute (MSA 462.257, Subd. 1) provides “The governing body…may impose conditions in granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect adjacent properties”. He suggested that this means that the City can mandate landscape improvements, prohibit existing landscape removal, and insure those mandates are accomplished by requiring financial security, as long as those conditions are responsive to insuring compliance, and protecting adjacent properties. Dillerud added it would be wise to review any proposed variance conditions against those criteria before attaching them to an approval resolution.