09-02-86 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 2, 1986 PAGE 5 from the Development Moratorium. The City Council voted to send the moratorium variance request to the Planning Commission for their consideration. The Planning Commission decided at their August 25th meeting that the propsosed variance for size of accessory building would be compatible with the proposed new Comprehensive Plan. They also suggested that the City Council make its decision to grant the building size variance be contingent upon the McNamara's applying for a rezoning from RR to Ag. City Attorney Knaak stated that the request for a 12,000 sq.ft. building is a judgement call, but this request is for a building four to six times larger from what the City code allows. In order to get around the moratorium to grant this variance, there is included the express condition that you make application by a certain date to the City for downzoning to Agricultural. Knaak's concern is the potential precedent setting value at this point in terms that you have granted a variance for four times larger than the maximum allowed in the code, when all I am asking is two times greater. He recommended that the quickest, easiest and clearest way to resolve this problem is through rezoning. Mrs. McNamara expected her land was zoned Agricultural, but was surprised when they made out a builing permit application, that it was not zoned Agricultural. It was the moratorium that prevented her from seeking application for rezoning to Agricutural at that time. She stated that her hardship is that her herd of horses has grown and she has no where to put them. She cannot be assured that she will be able to sell them before the snow falls and needs shelter for them in the winter. M/S/P Dunn/Armstrong - to grant a variance for an accessory building in an RR zoning to not exceed 12,000 sq.ft. based on the hardship of the horses needing shelter because of inclement winter and contingent on an immediate application for rezoning of their land from the current Rural Residential category to the Agricultural category. (Motion carried 3-1<Mazzara: He would like to see her put the building up, but doesn't feel a 12,000 sq.ft. building in RR is a good variance, it could cause trouble for the City, and he feels the land should be rezoned to Agricultural>). 8. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT A. Amendment No. 5 At the August 5, 1986 City Council meeting, City Engineer Bohrer provided documentation showing the actual cost to complete the Step 2 Engineering was $164,955.18. This amoount is $12,955.18 more than previously authorized by Amendment No. 4. This additional amount is almost entirely attributable to the requests of the MPCA for additional soil tests, exploration pits, information, and re -design. This amount is a direct cost to TKDA for which no professional fee has been added. TKDA respectfully requested that the City consider proposed Amendment No. 5 which would reimburse TKDA for its additional cost.