12-06-83 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING December 6, 1983 Page 3 Mazzara stated if this variance was approved, it would be approved without justification. However, it is a business area and by granting this variance, (if there is nothing detrimental to water, sewer, or roads,) something beneficial to the community could be put in. Carol Kuettner, 9103 Jamaca Court N., stated that as a member of the public she was opposed to approval of this variance. She felt it would make more sense to change the criteria. There wouldn't necessarily have to be a specific lot size, the criteria should be that it meets the necessary requirements, depending on where it is located and what the land can hold. Mr. Stouvenel stated that the maintenance of the lot in itself has been a hardship. There has been a good deal of money and effort spent trying to create and maintain beautification in the undeveloped areas, but the weeds have become uncontrolable and he has given up. Eder suggested that the Planning Commission take a look at the present standards versus what is the minimum area that could be required for different, types of business'. Morgan stated that he does not see the hardship, and the City would be setting a precedent that would apply throughout the City. He stated he was going to vote against this subdivision and said he would rather see the ordinance changed for business or commercial applications. Stouvenel stated that Morgan was a member on the Council when the rezoning was done in Lake Elmo. There were protests from many people at the time, and the answer from Morgan and the Administration was "if it is reasonable and fair, just bring it back to the Council and ask for it and you will get it." He further stated that he felt this was a reasonable and fair request. Morgan stated he did not recall saying that, but still did not feel this was a fair and reasonable request. Discussion on sending the issue back to the Planning Commission for .review, with some direction or something specific in mind. Fraser stated that she was unsure as to the need for this review. This request is one instance, but are there enough other instances or potential instances to warrant this procedure? She further added that she would very much like to grant this request, but does not see the justification allowing for it. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:10 p.m. M/S/P Morgan/Dunn - To deny the simple lot subdivision and variances for lot 1, block 1 of Brookman Addition. (Motion carried 3 - 2 <Eder and Mazzara>) M/S/P Mazzara/Fraser - To ask the Planning Commission to review the standard requirement of 1-1/2 acres for general business zoning. (Motion carried 5-0)