09-15-87 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 1987 PAGE 5 Meyer with the intent of housing all the existing equipment and no expansion of the business, contingent upon both of the parcels being combined into one parcel and assure that the easement does not go along the entire length of property (tax number 5350). (Motion carried 5-0). C. General Business Zoning District Amendment The proposed amendment to the General Business Zoning District ordinance was discussed at the Council meeting of 9-1-87. Action was tabled and the Staff was directed to prepare a revised draft ordinance amendment for this meeting to include catering as an "allowed incidental and subsidiary use". M/S/P Johnson/Graves - to remove the motion from the table. (Motion carried 5-0). Councilman Graves called for a vote on the motion, but the Council wanted to discuss it further. Marge Williams, Vice -Chair of the Planning Commission, commented that the Planning Commision had drafted a new General Business ordinance which reflects discussions that the Council has had. Williams asked the Council to hold off voting on this amendment until they review the entire new General Business ordinance. Ed Gorman indicated he was before the Planning Commission four different times. The existing ordinance draft before them already had a public hearing and was not opposed by anyone, the City Attorney agreed with the language and he (Gorman) could live with the boundaries. Councilman Johnson did have a problem with the way the ordinance was written. He did not know why they are tieing a bakery operation to a restaurant. Why shouldn't somebody who wants to open up a bakery and sell retail bakery goods and has nothing to do with a restaurant operation, be allowed in the City in the General Business area in Lake Elmo? Johnson stated he was in favor of a bakery in Lake Elmo. City Administrator Overby explained that the original concern raised by the City Attorney is that a bakery is considered by the code as a manufacturing use, but if they are supportive or incidental to a restaurant business you have a different situation. This was a means of allowing a use without a conditional use permit. Overby added that it was explained to the Planning Commission as being a city-wide ordinance amendment and it was not Ed Gorman's application. Councilwoman Armstrong did not see any reason why they could not let the Planning Commission incorporate their language into the amendment. There was no reason to duplicate this. The Council should wait to see what the Planning Commission wants and do it only once. Mayor Christ stated that there is nothing stopping Mr. Gorman from proceeding with what he intends to do. All that the Council is saying is instead of this ordinance we are going to have one much more