Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 10-2-84 PAGE 8 <br />the southern part of the property, the applicant will also apply for a <br />zoning code side yard setback variance. The setback is between <br />Industrial and Residential land, and the land to the west is zoned RR. <br />However, it is pretty clear that the intended use of that land in the <br />future will not be residential in nature. In those terms a variance <br />would seem reasonable. <br />The Administrator further stated that he received a telephone call <br />from the property owner to the north, Mr. Wheeler, and while he was <br />not specifically in favor or opposed to this proposal, he knows that <br />progress is going to take place in the development of these <br />interchanges. Mr. Wheeler's only concern related to the volume of <br />traffic, noise and the overall appearance of the operation and simply <br />wanted these statements a part of the public record. <br />Bruce Folz suggested that a more viable solution to the 100 foot <br />buffer question would be to rezone the west 100 feet of the adjoining <br />property that Mr. Peltier owns. It would not be a large enough tract <br />that he could subdivide and do anything with it, but it would be a <br />committment that it will be an Industrial/Commercial use. <br />Fraser stated that this proposal may well be what is appropriate for <br />this land and has no specific objections. However, she is concerned <br />with the Hanson property nested in this area. Also, in reviewing the <br />questions the Planner raises with adjacent lands, she would like to <br />see a broader look taken at the proposal. In the past, we have had at <br />least one example of rezoning in keeping with the Comp Plan, and we <br />found out that many citizens wished they would have had more of an <br />opportunity for input; that the procedures, while there were notices, <br />etc., still did not alert many people who might be interested in <br />responding to the proposal. <br />Dunn stated that he would like to review the Planning Commission's <br />minutes on both rezoning proposals before the Council tonight. Also, <br />the policy of the City has been to rezone for specific users and all <br />he has heard to date is verbal, nothing in writing - no committment as <br />to what is going in. He would, therefore, be reluctant to grant a <br />rezoning on that basis. <br />Fraser stated that with respect to the time and money that has been <br />put into this proposal, this development is extremely important to the <br />City of Lake Elmo and feels it would be inappropriate to proceed until <br />we really believe that the plan, and what will result for other <br />properties from it, is going to make sense for the City. <br />M/S/P Eder/Dunn - To defer action on this request until October 16, <br />1984 so the City Council has an opportunity to review the Planning <br />Commission's minutes, and to review whatever information is necessary <br />to assure that this rezoning is the right move to make. (Motion <br />carried 4-0). <br />I. Public Hearing for David Nelson's preliminary plat and zoning <br />code variances for allowing an existing accessory structure to <br />remain on a new lot before the primary structure is built and <br />to exceed the maximum square footage. <br />Pursuant to published notice, this public hearing was opened at 9:24 <br />