My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-05-99 CCM
LakeElmo
>
City Council
>
City Council - Final Meeting Minutes
>
1990's
>
1999
>
10-05-99 CCM
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/19/2025 11:39:42 AM
Creation date
10/2/2019 8:42:46 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
• On July 20, 1999, the project was once again in front of the City Council and passed <br />in concept of the project with a vote of 4-1, and directed the staff to proceed with the <br />zoning, based on the Village Commission's recommendation. When asked, Mr. <br />Dillerude, the City Planner, and Mr. Filla, the City Attorney stated that these matters <br />can easily and quickly be accomplished. <br />• In August we were requested to attend the August 17`' City Council Meeting due to <br />the fact that some City Council members had some questions in regards to our <br />project that were recorded in the July 20`h meeting minutes and would like our <br />presence when this was discussed. Councilwoman Rosemary Armstrong stated at <br />the August 17`h meeting that she was confused and didn't understand what she was <br />voting for on July 20`' and wanted to change her vote, and stated that the City of <br />Lake Elmo does not allow storage in our community. The vote was changed to 3-2, <br />which still directed the City Administration to proceed with zoning options. The <br />City does have storage in Lake Elmo. In fact, Councilwoman Armstrong has direct <br />personal ties with the largest storage facility in Lake Elmo. I understand that her <br />family's storage was grandfathered in, but so is ours, due to the fact that in the early <br />1900's our building was built for storage and has not changed it's function since that <br />time. <br />• In early September, we were informed by the City Administration that we needed to <br />go back through the process all over again with the Planning Commission, pay <br />$5,000 (which was reduced to $1,000) even though we had already gone through that <br />route, received a 6-0 vote in favor of our project. When asked why we needed to do <br />this, we were not given clear information to help us understand. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.