Laserfiche WebLink
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 17, 1994 3 <br />C. Surface Water Ordinance <br />The Council received a copy of the Surface Water Use Ordinance which includes <br />the recodified version from the League and the version that was prepared by the <br />Surface Water Committee. <br />M/S/C John/Mottaz- to schedule a meeting on June 1, 1994, 7-8:30 p.m., to <br />review the Surface Water Ordinance jointly with the Surface Water Committee. <br />(Motion carried 5-0). <br />6. PLANNING/LAND USE & ZONING: <br />A. Ordinance 8096 Adopting Recodification Fence Ordinance <br />At the last meeting, the council suggested Mr. Conrad, the resident who would <br />like to construct a fence in his front yard to replace the lilac bushes that were lost <br />during the Jamaca Avenue reconstruction, apply for a variance so that the <br />proposed fence could exceed the four foot height limitation. In preparing for Mr. <br />Conrad's public hearing, it was discovered there is no provision in the "Fence" <br />section of the code for variances. This provision was added to Ordinance 8096 <br />adopting the Recodified Fence Ordinance. Once this ordinance is adopted and <br />published, Mr. Conrad can apply for a variance. <br />M/S/C John/Conlin - to adopt Ordinance <br />fences of the Lake Elmo Municipal Code <br />carried 5-0). <br />8096 adopting Section 1425 relating to <br />and repealing Section 1505. (Motion <br />M/S/C Johnson/Johnston - to adopt summary of Ordinance 8096 relating to <br />fences. (Motion carried 5-0). <br />B. Resolution No. 94-15, Amending Resolution 87-33 relating to <br />Lake Elmo Heights 2nd Addition <br />M/S/ Johnson/John - to adopt Resolution No. 94-15 amending Resolution 87-33 <br />M/S/C John/Johnston - to table resolution until city administrator returns with <br />clarification of 440 versus 464 acres. (Motion carried 5-0). <br />M/S/C Mottaz/Johnson - to take the motion off the table. (Motion carried 5-0). <br />M/S/C Johnson/John - to amend the motion to include the change of acreage <br />from 440 to 464 acres. (Motion carried 4-1: Mottaz:we should be consistent with <br />the previous council's opinion and not remove Condition #6). <br />