06-21-94 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 21, 1994 C. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance to impervious surface standard: Applicant: D.C. Sales, 9242 Hudson Blvd. Mayor John opened the public hearing at 7:21 p.m. in the council chambers. The public hearing was published in the June 8, 1994 Stillwater Gazette Extra and adjoining property owners were notified. The Council received the June 14, 1994 memo from City Planner, Steve Schwanke. Greg Dovolis, D.C. Sales Company, stated the building expansion is needed to meet growth in business activity and the hardship is unique to the land, and the building involved cannot be expanded vertically. There was no one to speak against the variance request. Mayor John closed the public hearing at 7:23 p.m. M/S/C John/Johnston - to grant the request of D.C. Sales, 9242 Hudson Road, for a variance to the impervious surface standards in the GB zoning district provided the applicant constructs the reserved parking area out of porous block structures which would meet the city's impervious surface coverage and to require an additional 0.11 AcYt. of dead storage in the pond as recommended in Larry Bohrer's letter dated March 18, 1994. (Motion carried 4-1:Johnson:The 35% impervious surface coverage requirement was already a compromise. Granting this variance would establish a precedent). M/S/C John/Johnston - to approve the requested 14,632 square foot addition to the existing building by D.C.Sales. (Motion carried 4-1:Johnson: Without additional parking, he did not know if there would be ample parking.) D. Site and Plan Review: Springborn Green Acres - Addition to existing building M/S/C Mottaz/Conlin - to approve the site and plan review for the proposed 40' x 40' addition to the Springborn Green Acres chalet as recommended by the Planning Commission. (Motion carried 5-0). E. Alternative Ag: Recommendation from Planning Commission Todd Williams, 3025 Lake Elmo Avenue, stated if the council is concerned that some of the uses that are normally allowed in commercial zoning district are not appropriate for Alternative Ag uses why not amend the ordinance to restrict these types of uses and define the allowed uses rather than repeal the entire ordinance. He feels it does allow preservation of Ag land which is a dwindling commodity in this city.