My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-17-87 CCM
LakeElmo
>
City Council
>
City Council - Final Meeting Minutes
>
1980's
>
1987
>
02-17-87 CCM
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2025 7:45:59 PM
Creation date
10/2/2019 8:10:05 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 1987 PAGE 5 <br />enough accessory buildings which exceed the limit of the size, the <br />overlay district as a 10-acre mininum, and there is too much <br />activity (apartments, trailer sales, raising and selling of <br />llamas, primary residence) going on this land. <br />Councilman Graves questioned if these were considered apartments <br />for purpose of what the ordinances would speak of. The Hansons <br />replied that the renters are direct family members and there is no <br />rental fee. Attorney Knaak referred to the definition of <br />apartments in the code which is as follows: a room or a suite of <br />rooms with cooking facilities designed to be occupied as a <br />residence by a single family. Farrell asked what was the <br />definition of family? Family is defined as an individual, or two <br />(2) or more persons each related by blood, marriage, adoption, or <br />foster care arrangement living together as a single housekeeping <br />unit or group of not more than four (4) persons not so related., <br />maintaining a common household, exclusive of servants. <br />Graves added that he did not hear any vocal opposition to the <br />Hanson's proposal at the public hearing. The Planning Commission <br />did recommend (7-0 vote) that the City Council grant the CUP. As <br />long as one variance can be eliminated and a possible merit shown <br />on the hardship of the land, he would support this request. <br />Councilman Moe also found the hardship being the configuration of <br />the land. He also saw this as an ag-related use and had no <br />problems granting the variances or amending the CUP to allow the <br />proposed. building. <br />Councilman Johnson felt the City has good ordinances and the City <br />should not continue granting variances except where there is <br />definite hardship shown. He could not find a hardship in this <br />case. The following motion was made: <br />M/S/P Johnson/Armstrong - to deny variance requests by Leonard and <br />LuAnn Hanson, 10824 Hudson Blvd., required to allow construction <br />of an accessory building under an amended Conditional Use Permit <br />based on the following Finding of Facts. (Motion carried 3-2<Moe, <br />Graves>). <br />1. Lot Size of 7.91 acres does not meet City code for the new <br />building request. <br />--40 acres required for accessory building in excess of 2,000 <br />sq.ft. <br />--10 acres required for accessory buildings in excess of 1,000 <br />sq.ft., but less than 2,000 sq.ft. <br />-for less than 10 acres, a maximum of 1,000 sq.ft. is allowed for <br />accessory buldings. <br />2. The requested new building of 2,400 sq.ft. does not meet the <br />City code because there would then exist four accessory buildings <br />with a total area of 4,068 sq.ft. The City Code (301.130 C.14) <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.