05-21-96 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 21, 1996 C. Maintenance Building Update City Planner Terwedo updated the public and Council on the development of the Maintenance Building. Monday, May 20, the Maintenance Advisory Committee met with the Council and discussed the existing City facilities. There was discussion of moving the Parks Dept. to the existing Public Works Facility with the Fire Dept., Lakeview Ambulance relocating to the Parks Building. Then focus turned to the development of the proposed new facility. The issues of the garage structure and future equipment was discussed, and Councilman DeLapp will develop several alternative concept plans for review by the MAC and Council. There will be another Joint meeting with the Council and the MAC on June 3, and the City will move forward on design and development of the facility. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: A. Armstrong: Conditional Use Permit Amendment City Planner Terwedo advised the City Council of the Planning Commission action at their April 22, 1996, meeting. City Attorney Filla read the resolution to the council. Administrator Kueffner handed out copies of a resolution to the Council. The Council made the following motion: M/S/P Conlin/John - to adopt Resolution No. 96-9 denying the request of Thomas G. Armstrong, Thomas P. Armstrong, and Jodi Armstrong for an amendment to an existing Conditional Use Permit. (Motion passed 4-0-1; abstain: DeLapp - he was not on the Council at the time the application came in.) Tom P. Armstrong was recognized by Mayor John. Mr. Armstrong read a prepared statement to the Council (labeled for reference as Exhibit A). Mr. Armstrong stated his concern of being a legal non -conforming use. The Council discussed differences in opinion of open space preservation. Mr. Armstrong indicated they will use every legal means available to preserve their farm. Tom G. Armstrong was recognized by Mayor John and indicated the Armstrong family will pursue this issue. B. Armstrong: Request for fence along common lot line with "Torre Pines" The Council received a cover sheet prepared by City Administrator Kueffner with background information regarding this issue, and a copy of a letter, dated February 16, 1996, prepared by City Attorney Jerry Filla, accompanied by a copy of MN Statute Chapter 344 Partition Fences. Mayor John recognized Tom Armstrong. Tom G. Armstrong stated, to the City Council, he may have to look into raising cattle on his property, therefore, requests a 48 inch high, 4 strand barbed wire fence. Mike Black, representing Royal Oaks Realty and James Meehan, advised the City Council that they do not need a fence and do not want a fence, and that Mr. Armstrong has not shown proof of his intent to have cattle; none of the property has been fenced. Mr. Black stated that if a fence must be constructed on the common property line their preference is a 48 inch high woven wire fence because barbed wire is not compatible with residential dwelling, and requested the City Council define the construction of the fence. To be a fair process, Mr. Black indicated they would require bids for construction of the fence, an escrow of Armstrong's portion, Mr. Meehan's portion and Royal Oaks portion. Mr. Black stated they will only accept a certified survey of the property line, and requests the notice of claim be removed from the property. Mr. Armstrong stated he would construct the West half section of the fence and take care of that half of the fence, and would do the survey. Mr. Black stated he will follow the City Council's direction, but wanted it made clear that any work done by the Armstrong's before Royal Oaks contacts them will not be reimbursed by Royal Oaks or the Meehan's, and he is not agreeing to any decisions made by Mr. Armstrong tonight. The Council discussed their options and was not comfortable with barbed wire. Mr. Armstrong stated woven wire would prohibit small animals from moving freely. Mr. Black requested the City Council table this issue, before passing a motion, until he has time to consult with his firm's attorney regarding type of fence, section of fence, and date.