March 6, 2006 CCP - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

correction order. She said it is not subject to appeal because it is not an administrative DRAFT directive, so it is not subject to appeal. She said misinformation was given by Mr. Sessing. She said she came to the City over'one year ago. Meetings and hours of testimony resulted in this directive. Mr. Sessing has never said he meets the Code. She asked the Council to ask Jerry Filla to add these to the complaint at Washington County. She said they did not move the business. There is still storage onsite. She said nobody wants 600 feet of PVC pipe down their property line. It is a structure that was constructed and it runs in and out of their property. She said the Code allows for retaining walls and landscaping of sod, seed, mulch and plantings. Everyone sees it is not a fence. It is not a fence based on Jerry Filla's definitions. She does not want to argue it again for a fifth time. With all the drainage issues, it has to be fixed. Mr. Sessing should not be allowed to do what nobody else is allowed to do. Fieldstone resolution was suspect because it was based on a Code that was going to be changed but never was. If he has to remove all of it to repair the grading, then Council has to give permission again. He should not be allowed to have permission a second time for something that never should have been allowed the first time. The Mayor closed the hearing at 10:17 p.m. , Councilmember DeLapp asked if this is a viable house? Is the electric fence illegal or relevant? standpoint? Councilmember Smith said the Council the pictures. We had no appeal for the c She said the pictures subm.itted are illee M/S/P, Smith/Conlin, To lawsuit. . Is the siadage and business out of the we are doingpermissible from a legal h this over and over, and we have seen ers so she is not sure it is justified. measurements. forward and add the four items to our Councilmember Conlin askeKdf this appealis justified. Give the applicant the chance to appeal and make a_decision_ " FF aancu it we yearned something that we did not know before. He made the motion f6r that nast_rP.gnhit;' ,, Councilmember SmithAaid a motion was made to use it as a landscaping material not for a retaining wall. There is no documentation for it. Councilmember DeLapp asked if the motion he made then was for approval of fieldstone landscaping. The City Attorney said Mr. Sessing did not add any more after that. He does not recall photographs from that time and the minutes don't reflect it. There was also an issue of erosion that this landscaping was going to correct. The Mayor called the question. VOTE: 4:1 Nay-DeLapp He said his was a throwaway vote, and he is not convinced we have thoroughly addressed all the issues. He thought he saw photographs of it seven years ago. The City Attorney will make an amendynent to the lawsuit for six additional issues. Lake Elmo City Council Minutes of January 17, 2006 12