My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5.4. SR 05-17-2010
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2000 - 2010
>
2010
>
05-17-2010
>
5.4. SR 05-17-2010
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 3:05:21 PM
Creation date
5/14/2010 2:29:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
5/17/2010
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
622
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
03/09/2010 16:13 + BRIGGS MORGAN IYIPLS 1 PAGE 47/60 <br />Gonstrued an favor of l?RL,, there is no City Code recluaz~eztient that tl~e State-mandated <br />200~foot buffer be located within the SVV1? ov~a-lay district. <br />3. JLr OT' ~O1VS~.I2UCT~®leT .IiTO 3:.F~aonlb9gt2itaes axe <br />Construed per the uzzderly6mg policy <br />Zoxiizxg ordinances must be coiasi.dered it7. light of their uttdorlyizig policy goals. See <br />I'i~asalc's,IV~ursct~ Sales, Iixc. v. City ofRoseville, 295 N.W,2d 604, 60& (Nliiui. 1980); see <br />also _llledical ,Sews„ Inc, v, CtCy of Savage, 487 i`1'.~VV.2d 263, 266 (Miruta. ,App. 1992). <br />Ally ambiguity axi the City Code regarding whether the State-mandated 200-foot buffex <br />lass to be located within the SWI' overlay dxstxact is, therefore, to be construed pes the <br />pus~oae fox the provisiozi at issue, <br />The State-mandated 200-foot buffer has elsewhere been applied precisely es advocated <br />liere by the LI2.L. ~~. 145. The City ca~aziot, therefoxe, suggest in good Faith that its <br />puzposc will be vtxclexi%ined by the ERT.'s construction. <br />Indeed, the City staff previously agreed (albeit implicitly) with t?ae I/P~t,'s positio;~_ Zzi <br />response to the E1:t~ and'l'illex's October 2002 application to expand wliat ttie City staff <br />dubbed the paining "cox~i~oz~.GZat" of the laud~ill 150 feet into the State-zrtaanclated 200-foot <br />bu1'~'er, the City staff explained. that tlae puxpose of the State-;rtzaudated 200-foot buffer is <br />to protect the adjacent lancl.owners"'land values." ?/~t. 98 at 2-3 ("[t)he euxxetxttwo <br />hundred (200) foot buffer [into wXdeb it ~va.s then seekizag to expand] was pLit 1t1 place to <br />provide adequate screening axid distance between 1azadfill activities aztd Ili@ [Tiller] <br />property to tlae south to help protect [Tiller's] land value acid liaxtit ix(ipacts on future uses <br />o~'tb.at property"). As with the neigliborxtig landowneeto the Burnsville Sanitary Landfill <br />(Bx. 145), adjacent laxidowners, ]ilce Tiller here, can pxot®ct their "land values" by an <br />agreemei2t with tli~i land$11 regaxclizig the State-mandated 200-foot buffer. hi fact, cif t}ae <br />City sta#'f had construed ire City Code as requirizzg the State-axzaxidated 200 foot buffer to <br />be located within tlxe SWF ovei~imy district regardless of riziy agA-eeiuent between; the ERI., <br />aril Ti]lox, tk,;exi, it would 1iave said so in response to the ERL's 2002 application. Zt did <br />T:b7A2114Dd~LYryApprcb~FSH Rapatt_41nu1(2).doc ~ -^ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.