02-17-87 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 1987 PAGE 5 enough accessory buildings which exceed the limit of the size, the overlay district as a 10-acre mininum, and there is too much activity (apartments, trailer sales, raising and selling of llamas, primary residence) going on this land. Councilman Graves questioned if these were considered apartments for purpose of what the ordinances would speak of. The Hansons replied that the renters are direct family members and there is no rental fee. Attorney Knaak referred to the definition of apartments in the code which is as follows: a room or a suite of rooms with cooking facilities designed to be occupied as a residence by a single family. Farrell asked what was the definition of family? Family is defined as an individual, or two (2) or more persons each related by blood, marriage, adoption, or foster care arrangement living together as a single housekeeping unit or group of not more than four (4) persons not so related., maintaining a common household, exclusive of servants. Graves added that he did not hear any vocal opposition to the Hanson's proposal at the public hearing. The Planning Commission did recommend (7-0 vote) that the City Council grant the CUP. As long as one variance can be eliminated and a possible merit shown on the hardship of the land, he would support this request. Councilman Moe also found the hardship being the configuration of the land. He also saw this as an ag-related use and had no problems granting the variances or amending the CUP to allow the proposed. building. Councilman Johnson felt the City has good ordinances and the City should not continue granting variances except where there is definite hardship shown. He could not find a hardship in this case. The following motion was made: M/S/P Johnson/Armstrong - to deny variance requests by Leonard and LuAnn Hanson, 10824 Hudson Blvd., required to allow construction of an accessory building under an amended Conditional Use Permit based on the following Finding of Facts. (Motion carried 3-2<Moe, Graves>). 1. Lot Size of 7.91 acres does not meet City code for the new building request. --40 acres required for accessory building in excess of 2,000 sq.ft. --10 acres required for accessory buildings in excess of 1,000 sq.ft., but less than 2,000 sq.ft. -for less than 10 acres, a maximum of 1,000 sq.ft. is allowed for accessory buldings. 2. The requested new building of 2,400 sq.ft. does not meet the City code because there would then exist four accessory buildings with a total area of 4,068 sq.ft. The City Code (301.130 C.14)