Laserfiche WebLink
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 16, 1993 2 <br />5. OLD BUSINESS: <br />A. Gene Peltier: Minor Subdivision with variance, <br />10376 Hudson Blvd. <br />Bruce Folz, representing Gene Peltier, explained that Gene <br />wants to start conveying his property to his children. At <br />their December 9, 1991 and July 13, 1992 meeting, the <br />Planning Commission recommended Mr. Peltier rezone the 22 <br />acres to RE and plat the outlot at 2.5 acres and request a <br />variance from the 250' diameter requirement with the <br />hardship being it would create an odd shape lot due to the <br />location of the existing house and would hinder future <br />platting access and design which is how Mr. Peltier <br />proceeded. <br />M/S/P Conlin/Mottaz - to direct the staff to draft an <br />amended resolution for the March 2nd council meeting <br />granting a minor subdivision with two variances for lot <br />configuration, 250' circle and the 3:1 ratio requirement in <br />the RE zoning district based on the stated hardships. <br />(Motion carried 5-0). <br />B. Sampson Accessory Building <br />Mary Woodward read Attorney Magnuson's (Sue Sampson's <br />attorney) letter dated February 16, 1993 to the Council. <br />Barbara Otto asked that Mayor John abstain from voting on <br />this matter because he has taken a very partisan viewpoint. <br />He has been out to the Tjosvold property, and she didn't <br />know if they wined and dined him, but he seems to have taken <br />their information as fact. <br />The Council received a letter from Brian Tjosvold and Cindy <br />Zehrer Tjosvold, 8890 15th St. N., stating their concerns <br />and reasons why the Sampson barn cannot be overlooked. <br />Attorney Filla reported he has reviewed Attorney Magnuson's <br />letter, dated February 16, 1993, and offered the following <br />comments: He did not think that the Lake Elmo Code is <br />difficult to interpret. When this was discussed in the <br />past, the indication was clear that if there are other <br />violations in the neighborhood they should be pursued. He <br />asked the applicant to provide him with any other <br />information that they might have regarding other non- <br />conforming uses and Sampson refused to give that <br />information. In this case, red -tag indicates that the <br />property owner was notified not to proceed because the <br />building was not conforming to city code. In spite of the <br />request of the Washington County Sheriff, construction <br />continued. <br />