10-20-87 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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