10-18-94 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 18, 1994 B. Ordinance 8106 Disorderly Conduct M/S/P John/Conlin - to adopt Ordinance 8106 relating to Disorderly Conduct. (Motion passed 5-0). C. Ordinance 81 Curfew Floyd Olson, Cimarron Community Coalition, asked how much strength does the city have over NHD management of the park if they will not take care of the problem. Attorney Filla responded the city has no authority to require NHD to evict anyone from the park, nor does the city have any authority to take action against NHD for failing to enforce their own regulations. The Cimarron Community Coalition, as an organization, has more ability to deal with NHD than the city does. Attorney Filla will revise the draft of the Curfew Ordinance incorporating the changes in ages in the following subdivisions: Subd. 1. Hours for under 15 years of age, Subd. 2. Hours for 15 to 17 years of age, and provide proper wording for Subd. 3. Exceptions. M/S/ John/Mottaz - to adopt ordinance relating to the implementation of curfews within the city of Lake Elmo M/S/P John/Mottaz - to accept the amendments M/S/P John/Mottaz - to table until the November 1, 1994 meeting so that revisions can be made by the city attorney. (Motion passed 5-0). D. Ordinance 8107 Public Use Dedication M/S/P Johnson/Conlin - to adopt Ordinance No. 8107, as amended (ADD; unless the city council determines that all of the following criteria are satisfied), relating to public use dedication requirements. (Motion passed 4-1:Mottaz: this kind of property, since it is protected by floodplain and wetland regulations, would always be preserved in that manner. Therefore, it should not be used to allow developers to satisfy the public use dedication requirement.) 6. PLANNING, LAND USE & ZONING: A. Resolution 94-27 Stonegate Phase II M/S/P Conlin/Johnson - to table discussion on the Development Agreement for Stonegate 2nd Addition, as amended, (Section 5: change date of June 15 to September 1, 1995) to include wording by the City Attorney in Section 16. (Motion passed 5-0).