04-20-82 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY COUNCIL MEETING, APRIL 20, 1982 :® 8. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: B. Armstrong LargeLot Subdivision &' Rezoning - Tom Armstrong presented hiequest to the Council and referred them to the Planning Commission recommendation to approve the rezoning and subdivision. He called the Councils attention to the set -back requirement for buildings in ag zoning. A survey of the parcel places his buildings 30 ft. from the lot line .: 100 ft is required in ag areas. He does not intend to house animals Ln the building and will sign a statement to this effect. M/S/P Mottaz/Morgan to adopt-R-82-25, A -resolution approving a Large Lot Subdivision for Tom Armstrong with the provision that the building that is situated 30 ft. from the westerly property line will not be used for housing animals. M/S/P Morgan/Mottaz, to adopt Ordinance 7933, an Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance to rezone a 14 acre parcel, divided from Parcel 37028-2600, to agriculture. C. Eugene 'St rum Simple Lot Division and Variance for Private Road - Administrator itta er`reviewed the Strum request and he Planning Commission recommendation to deny the lot division and variance. --Eder - this parcel was platted, evaluated and approved based on design and engineering standards. Any change would require reevaluation. This is not just an exception because it meets an area factor. --Mottaz - sees no hardship to justify the request. M/S/P Eder/Morgan, to deny the Simple Lot Division and Variance for Eugene Strum. D. Gene Peltier - inquiry for Rezoning or Variance to put Advertising signs along I-94 in RR Zone- Mr. Peltier asked the.Council`to'revise their positon on commercial zoning along Highway 12', so that he can relocate several advertising signs that will be displaced by the new highway. The Highway Department has indicated these signs have to be located on commercial property his property is presently zoned RR. He is concerned about the 'loss of revenue generated by these signs if they cannot be relocated. Other property owners along Hwy 12 support rezoning a 660 ft. deep strip along the highway. Mr.. Peltier indicated Woodbury and West Lakeland have provided for ccmmercial - why not Lake Elmo. --Mottaz - Lake Elmo is compatible with Woodbury for staged commercial development along the highway. Cannot rezone to accomodate signs. --Eder - offered to meet with area property owners and determine what commercial. demands might be - not seen as a solid commercial strip but mixed uses. Since the signs donEt have to be moved for two years,.recommend holding off and come back in 6 months. --Whittaker - Comp Plan does not call for commercial in this area before 1990 - this was done in an attempt to stage development with available services. E. Annual Work Plan Meetinq, - The Council will meet jointly with the Ccmmission as their schedules permit.