My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-20-87 CCM
LakeElmo
>
City Council
>
City Council - Final Meeting Minutes
>
1980's
>
1987
>
10-20-87 CCM
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2025 7:46:00 PM
Creation date
10/2/2019 8:10:13 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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 OCTOBER 20, 1987 PAGE 4 <br />understanding that they would become non -conforming uses in the GB <br />zone and could not be expanded in size or scope. There was no <br />intention to put any existing business out of business. The plan makes <br />no provision for new industrial future land uses or support for such <br />rezoning. Lake Elmo Hardwood Lumber and Lake Elmo Feed Mill were <br />mailed copies of the meeting agenda and City Council information <br />sheet. <br />This ordinance amendment as drafted was recommended by the Planning <br />Commission for City Council approval after a public hearing was held <br />October 13, 1987. There was no one present to speak for or against <br />the proposed amendment. <br />Thomas Barrett, 3300 Piper, Jaffrey Tower in Minneapolis, representing <br />Joe Rogers, explained that passage of this amendment would mean he <br />could not expand or make additions to his business or if it was <br />destroyed in a fire he could not reconstruct it. All of these <br />limitations would affect his ability to sell his business. He would <br />not have full value of his business that he has built-up because <br />finding a buyer yesterday was higher than it is toda subject to <br />passing of this ordinance. (easier amended 11-3-87y} <br />Councilman Graves was generally in favor of this amendment with the <br />-exception--of the limitations it does put on the two existing <br />businesses. Therefore, he would not be in favor of this ordinance as <br />it exists because it states these business cannot expand or do <br />anything further which includes rebuilding it after it burns down, the <br />value of this business is severely restricted. He would be in favor of <br />returning this ordinance to the Planning Commission and get the legal <br />input from Attorney Knaak so it would not restrict those two existing <br />businesses. <br />Planning Commission Chairman Steve DeLapp commented that it was not <br />his interpretation of the Planning Commission to put anyone out of <br />business, but if the company burned down it should be able to rebuild. <br />The Planning Commission wanted to have all the existing industrial <br />uses in the City to be able to be maintained without any intent to <br />shut them down, but the intent was to eliminate this category for <br />further developemnt. <br />Councilwoman Armstrong thought we should check into how much land <br />these two businesses occupy and how much expansion can be done because <br />it is next to a residential area. <br />M/S/P Graves/Moe - to ask the City Staff to contact City Attorney <br />Knaak and explain the City Council's objective (to have the ability of <br />the business to continue to exist and operate in a manner that they <br />would have previous to the deletion of the Industrial Zoning) and for <br />him to make the appropriate change in the General Business ordinance <br />to reflect this objective of these two specific businesses are allowed <br />uses under the provisions of the pre-existing limited Industrial <br />Zoning and report back at the next meeting. (Motion carried 4-0). <br />C. Zoning Ordinance Amendment: Additions, Deletions <br />and Changes to the General Business Zoning Distict. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.