01-04-83 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING, JANUARY 40 1983 -7- 4, ANNUAL ORIGANIZATION MEETING: K. Conditional'U8'e Permits - Oakdale' Gun' C'Ru=v'� Continued --Whittaker —good to include more clearly defined items in the permit - more clear for the next City Council or the citizen or the Club should a question arise. Not placing any new restrictions - Club has taken care of conr_erns the City had last year and done very well. Good to be as clear as possible as long as the language has been worked out, should use the language. --Morgan have no particular objections to including the language appears both groups have agreed to agree and nothing has really changed on the permit. If the language can be incorporated into the permit without basically changing the permit, its acceptable.. --Fred Waterous - most immediate concern is the discretionable question of fencing. Present fencing is in conformance with the present permit - this is potentially a very expensive item This is one item of immediate concern. --Fraser - not asking for anything specific at this time - just that it 'is agreeable that this will --be reviewed with the annual renewal of the permit, --Whittaker - permit should stipulate that no new fencing is required for 1983. --Eder - regarding noise abatement - as it stands now the City agrees that the Club can continue with what noise abatement procedures have been taken and the Club will continue to evaluate this, if the Club determines additional work is needed and planned and the City agreed then this would be added to the next years permit. If something were removed, then, reasons would have to be given as to why. Having things in writing just clarifies the requirements for the governing body. All the Council is asking is to put in the permit the things the Gun Club agreed to do so that it is understood that it is an accepted practice for the Club to do what it is doing. This should prevent anyone from questioning any of the operation of the Gun Club. --Mazzara - asked, as far as the Gun Club is concerned, are there any problems with what is agreed upon here. If no problems are indicated, then would vote for the amendment and the motion. --Roger Jensen, Attorney for Gun Club- our druthers are not to be regulated at all - feel can accomplish regulation on our own by following own standards, etc. Also feel that the CUP Ordinance is not necessarily applicable on the Gun Club because of the reasons set forth in the December 21, 1982, letter, In October memo from the Administrator was sent with proposed conditions to the CUP for 1983.. Those conditions were extremely rigid and felt would come close to putting the Club out of business. Had negotiations with the City Attorney and Administrator and were able to come to an agreement as to <. terms and conditions of the permit that the Club could live with. Basically they complied with what was presently being done or intended to be done in 1983. These conditions are summarized in the Dec, 21 letter. As previously stated, would prefer not to have any regulations, but if there is going to be regulations do not want what was originally proposed. Feel what is proposed now in the combination of letters is something the Club can operate under safely for 1983 and the Executive Board of the Club has authorized Mr. Jensen to state that the Club would be agreeable to these terms.