04-19-94 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 19, 1994 D. Water Surface Use Committee's Recommendation M/S/C Johnson/Johnston - to direct the staff to prepare an ordinance for a public hearing on May 17, 1994 incorporating the recommendations of the Water Surface Use Committee, the current zoning ordinance, and the recodified ordinance. (Motion carried 5-0). Councilman Johnson requested any notes or minutes of the Surface water Use Committee be submitted to city hall. M/S/C Johnson/Mottaz - to direct the city attorney to review the water surface use ordinance for proper wording. (Motion carried 5-0.) E. Update on Olson Lake Estate Pond Larry Bohrer reported Chairman Peter Zetterberg announced that he would propose as the long-term resolution to the problem of the discharge of Olson Lake Estates Pond to Olson Lake by some type of treatment. Larry Bohrer and Attorney Dayton will attend a special workshop by the VBWD on April 21, 1994. 6. PLANNING/LAND USE & ZONING: A. PUBLIC HEARING: John Nicholson/Patricia Ganly, 8975 15th St. N. After -the -Fact Variance for setback of accessory building Mayor John opened up the public hearing at'9:40 p.m. The public hearing notice was published in the March 30, 1994 Stillwater Gazette Extra and affected property owners were notified. The Council received a report from Steven Schwanke, City Planner, dated April 18, 1994. John Nicholson explained he submitted to the Building Official shop drawings for all three buildings and a site plan. He feels the city has some responsibility to grant his variance because he received the 100' setback information from the city and requests refund of his variance application fee. Pictures were provided showing the construction of the three buildings. The Council received a letter from Steve Dahly, 8955 15th St. N., asking the council to take action needed to remove the violation on the Sampson property. Don Jeske, 8996 15th St., felt Mr. Nicholson's hardship for the variance was that he thought the permit was for three buildings, (the house, garage, and accessory building) because the plans were submitted to the building official for all three. He felt the accessory building was visible to the building official when he made the inspections on the house and garage. There was no one to speak against the variance request.