02-17-87 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 1987 PAGE 4 land, which is absurd. The State of Minnesota took off part of that land. This particular overlay on the commercial business use is an ordinance that is an overlay requiring 110 acres for an agricultural use. These ordinances themselves have created the hardship which you can find in this particular case. Mr. Farrell asked City Attorney Knaak what the zoning is on this property. Farrell has examined City Administrator Overby's letter, and it is clear that this is business zoned. Farrell stated that his suggestion to the Hansons was that the ordinances and everything that has happened in this community have created such a situation that rather than do the battle on the zoning, they should apply for a variance to build a 40' x 60' accessory building. City Attorney Knaak responded that his understanding is the land is zoned agricultural with a CUP. Mr. Farrell interrupted with: "that is your understanding, but have you examined the question? If you read City Administrator Overby's letter that ordinance has never been revoked. This is an interim use, which is non -offensive use, a use the planning commission looked at and found to be an agricultural related use." Councilwoman Armstrong tried to explain that the condition here is a Conditional Use Permit which is granted by the City. Mr. Farrell responded that he knew what a conditional use permit is and what the requirements are, but he is suggesting that Minnesota State law states that the ordinance itself can create a hardship. It cetainly has created a hardship in this case. City Attonney Knaak suggested that Mr. Farrell had well argued his clients' position, and they did well to allow him to summarize his point, but the Council's decision should be on the public hearing that was held. Knaak further suggested that, although some circumstances do exist as Farrell suggests where a city ordinance can work a hardship, it is an open question whether this would be one of those kind of situations. Mr. Farrell responded that this question is to be determined by the Council. Mayor Christ• felt this City had not caused an undue hardship to the Hansons. They have a primary residence, a farming operation, and a Conditional Use Permit. What they are asking for is an addition to an already nonconforming use. It was non -conforming before the State took the land for the road. Christ found no hardship to justify granting these variances. Councilwoman Armstrong did not see the configuration of the land as being a hardship. This is considered economic, which cannot be considered a hardship. Iier understanding was that this land was zoned Ag because the Hansons wanted to sell horse trailers on an open lot. In the Conditional Use Permit it states (Item #1) that they cannot put up a permanent building. Armstrong felt the reason for this condition was sound to her, and she felt in order for the Hansons to keep their CUP, a building should not be put up. She could not find a hardship and felt there were more than