My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-21-95 CCM
LakeElmo
>
City Council
>
City Council - Final Meeting Minutes
>
1990's
>
1995
>
02-21-95 CCM
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2025 2:28:41 PM
Creation date
10/2/2019 8:29:56 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
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 FEBRUARY 21, 1995 3 <br />C. Human Rights Commission <br />Attorney Filla reviewed the proposed Multi -Community Human Rights Commission <br />Ordinance. In his report, dated February 17, 1995, Filla believed that this particular <br />function would best be structured as a Joint Powers Agreement between all of those <br />communities that wish to participate. The council received a draft of a proposed Joint <br />Powers Agreement. <br />M/S/P John/Conlin - to table for two weeks and instruct staff to send copies to Oak Park <br />Heights and Lakeland Shores as well as a cover letter stating the city would send this <br />Joint Powers Agreement along with no recommendation, but to note the agreement is <br />still being reviewed and make other communities aware of this proposal and ask them <br />to respond by April 1,1995. (Motion passed 5-0). <br />6. PLANNING/LAND USE & ZONING: <br />A. Hammes Sand & Gravel:Text Amendment to allow recycling <br />The city's position is the Hammes property is currently a nonconforming use because <br />that occurred in 1986 when the city has repealed its mining regulations. When they did <br />that, the Hammes property became non -conforming and continues in that posture <br />legally today. The Hammes' can continue to mine the entire site even though it is now <br />non -conforming. Recycling is not part of the definition of mining, has never been part of <br />this definition, and has never been authorized by the city. The property owner has <br />been asked to discontinue the recycling operation in the past. What is before the city is <br />whether or not as a city do they wish to add recycling to the category of uses that are <br />allowed in the Ag zone. <br />Richard McNamara, adjacent property owner, stated we have lived next to the Hammes <br />family many years where they started off with a sand pit --no problem with that, gone <br />from light industrial to heavy industrial, now they have gone into recycling of hazardous <br />waste. They have expanded quite a bit. Vehicles out on our farm need windshield <br />wipers to clean windshields in the morning. He voiced concerns on the hazardous <br />waste of all the contaminants, noise, use of the area, time, weekends, problems with <br />CUP, and extended mining operations which bring up the health safety issue. <br />M/S/P Conlin/Hunt - to table for two weeks for the staff to prepare a formal resolution <br />denying the Hammes application expressing the reasons we have for not wanting to <br />have the recycling use part of the city's regulations: 1. Include comments in Jeff <br />Smyser's staff report of January 18, 1995, 2. Concerns stated by Richard McNamara, <br />adjacent property owner, 3. the city is currently engaged in an 1-94 corridor study and <br />the impact on the Hammes property to be reviewed in connection with that study and at <br />this time not willing to expand any conditional agricultural uses. (Motion passed 5-0). <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.