My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
May 2, 2006 CCP
LakeElmo
>
City Council
>
City Council - Final Meeting Minutes
>
2000's
>
2006
>
May 2, 2006 CCP
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/19/2025 10:05:02 AM
Creation date
10/1/2019 3:19:20 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
296
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
i� ERSON <br />Warren E. Peterson — �i� <br />Jerome P. Filla j� � , <br />Daniel Witt BFram <br />ergman <br />'t'�7-� 7f; 7i ,[ BE7-- G R 7t 7� 7 <br />Glenn A. Bergman r ���v� j� j��� <br />John Michael Miller <br />Michael T. Oberle <br />Steven H. Bruns' <br />Paul W. Fahning` <br />Andrew P. Muller <br />Amy K. L. Schmidt <br />April 17, 2006 <br />Mr. Martin Rafferty <br />City Administrator <br />City of Lake Elmo <br />3800 Laverne Avenue North <br />Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 <br />RE: Drive -In, Drive -Up and Drive -Through Facilities <br />Our File No.: 11135.92-1 <br />Dear Marry: <br />t v7-1 . <br />Suite 300 <br />50 East Fifth Street <br />St. Paul, MN 55101-1197 <br />(651) 291-8955 <br />(651) 228-1753 facsimile <br />www.ptb-pa.com <br />Direct Dial #(651) 290-6907 <br />3 9, <br />The City has the authority to regulate drive -up facilities (MS 462.357) and, in fact, has done <br />so (Lake Elmo Code 300.13 Subd. 13). The City's current regulations may be a carry over <br />from the 1960's but, if read intotal, can reasonably by applied to all businesses which have <br />drive -up facilities: `The City-could`apply itscurrent regulations or could repeal'or amend'those <br />regulations'. <br />The City's regulations are presumed to be constitutional: The presumption is not conclusive <br />and can be rebutted by a showing that the City's regulations do not satisfy the following <br />constitutional standards: <br />1. Vagueness. Does a person of common intelligence have to guess as to the meaning or <br />application of the regulation? Is the regulation subject to several interpretations? If so, <br />the regulation may be unconstitutionally vague. <br />2. Reasonableness. Is the regulation reasonable in its terms and conditions? A reviewing <br />court will look at the stated purpose and intent of the regulation as well as its <br />application to particular facts in judging the reasonableness of the regulation. Normally <br />a reviewing court will defer to the judgment of the City Council on this particular matter. <br />3. Equal Protection. Does the regulation impose -restrictions on one class of"persons <br />engaged in a particular business which are not imposed on others engaged in the same <br />"= oUsiness under similar circumstances? This -may be the most difficult standard to <br />satisfy l#the City decides fo'imposesome regulation ; directly or indirectly, on sdrJlt t tit <br />not alf of the food establishments in a general business zone': <br />'A=ADM1=D IN VSCONS1N <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.