My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-01-86 CCM
LakeElmo
>
City Council
>
City Council - Final Meeting Minutes
>
1980's
>
1986
>
07-01-86 CCM
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2025 7:53:26 PM
Creation date
10/2/2019 8:08:20 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JULY 1, 1986 PAGE 2 <br />Maroney's and Eisinger Sanitation. They are applying for a grant <br />from the Metropolitan Council to examine the economics of <br />recycling and composting financing alternatives. They are looking <br />for City endorsement of their proposal to use when they approach <br />the Metropolitan Council for a grant. The Council requested <br />information from the County, so this will be scheduled for the <br />July 15, 1986 City Council agenda. <br />Ken Mahle, Woodbury Councilman, introduced himself and offered his <br />time for any discussion the City Council would be interested in <br />regarding items of mutual concern to Lake Elmo and Woodbury. <br />5. Requests for Variance from Development Moratorium <br />A. Cindy Stover - Edina Realty <br />At the last City Council meeting, this request for a variance from <br />the Development Moratorium Ordinance was forwarded to the City <br />Attorney for his consideration and review. City Attorney Knaak <br />handed out his recommendation in a memo dated July 1, 1986 to the <br />City Administrator. The applicant was not in attendance. <br />It is the City Attorney's opinion that the language of the <br />moratorium ordinance does require that any such request be <br />forwarded to the Planning Commission for its consideration with <br />respect to the provisions of the comprehensive plan. The <br />moratorium ordinance reads that such action is not discretinary if <br />the applicants wish to pursue the variance request. If' this is <br />the case in this matter, Knaak recommends that the Council forward <br />the matter to the Planning Commission for its review with the <br />understanding that the variance determination itself will be made <br />by the City at a future date. <br />The City Council took no action on the variance request. <br />B. David Zimmerhakl <br />At the last City Council meeting this variance request was <br />forwarded to the City Attorney for his consideration and review. <br />The applicant, was not at the meeting. <br />Mr. Zimmerhakl has explained at the last Council meeting that his <br />hardship is the issue of financing the parcel. City Attorney <br />Knaak referred to the provision of Section 301.060C1b. which <br />provides "economic considerations alone shall not constitute a <br />hardship". If the applicant wishes to pursue the matter, the <br />Council must forward the proposal to the Planning Commission. <br />The City Council took no action on the variance request. <br />C. Raymond Mester <br />This variance request was forwarded to the City Attorney for his <br />consideration and review. This request does require a variance <br />from the moratorium ordinance in order to permit any preliminary <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.