My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-15-97 CCM
LakeElmo
>
City Council
>
City Council - Final Meeting Minutes
>
1990's
>
1997
>
07-15-97 CCM
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2025 1:25:53 PM
Creation date
10/2/2019 8:39:20 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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
7. PLANNING, LAND USE & ZONING: <br />A. Hearing to Consider Appeal to Variance Granted to Brookman Motors for amount of impervious <br />surface coverage and setback from right-of-way <br />On June 9, 1997, the Planning Commission approved the variance requests based on the applicant's six <br />stated reasons in the City Planner's report. Administrator Kueffner appealed the variances granted because <br />she did not find a hardship as it applied to this proposal based on the interpretation of the Code. <br />Mark Schafer explained Brookman Motors has been in the City since 1932 and the present structure was <br />built in the 1940's. There is no other lot in the GB zone in the neighborhood that is 6 acres. The request is <br />for 47% impervious surface coverage from 35% The added pavement will make it safer for employees and <br />customers. <br />Tom Prew reported that the detention pond north of Highway 5 and west of the Lake Elmo Bank was <br />developed to accommodate all the development in the Brookman Addition based on that impervious <br />surface regulation. <br />Administrator Kueffner gave background that at one time for GB the impervious surface coverage in the <br />Old Village was 66%for the entire Brookman Addition, car dealership and the school. When new <br />construction came in, the City lowered it to 20% When the new Lake Elmo bank was proposed in 1988, <br />their total layout was 35% impervious coverage and that is how the existing standard came to be. <br />When Mayor John asked Attorney Filla if granting of the variance requested confer on the applicant a <br />special privilege that is denied by this ordinance to owners of other lands, structures and buildings in the <br />same district. Attorney Filla explained there are 30 listed GB uses in the code and if there are other parcels <br />in this area that are large acre parcels granting a variance of this size will create a problem for the City in <br />the future. Mayor John asked if another business in the same GB zoning came before us and requested an <br />increase from 35% then we would be unable to deny that. Attorney Filla stated it is important to <br />distinguish this case from other cases if the Council intends to grant this variance of this size. The business <br />that is grandfathered in is only what was in since the new code went in 1987. If is has grown since then, <br />the expansion is illegal and does not become grandfathered in. <br />Councilor DeLapp felt they were not talking about an existing business, but a new business which is going <br />to be twice as big —a 20,000 sq.fL building. Would the City approve an application for a business <br />covering 47% impervious coverage on a new lot in GB zone? There are extraordinary circumstances to this <br />property that are identical to ten other properties. <br />M/S/P Hunt/John — to support the June 9, 1997 Planning Commission recommendation for approval of the <br />variance requests based on Mark Shafer's, Brookman Motors, six stated reasons with additional findings of <br />fact: 1. Lot of more than 50 years in same location with the same use. 2. The health, safety, and welfare <br />of the workers on the site and the customers will be improved by granting this variances. 3. Water runoff <br />and pending is adequately covered by the existing site conditions. if the pond is found to be insufficient, <br />pending will be required on site. 4. Mr. Shafer will submit a landscape and lighting plan and elevation <br />drawing of the four sides of the building and that street trees be planted every 30' along State Highway 5 <br />and perimeter landscaping around the sign. Light fixtures should be no taller than 20 ft. in height. The <br />fixtures should be shoe box style which illuminate the light downward. A new sign plan should be <br />developed which meets the sign regulations. (Motion passed 2-1:DeLapp:we have completely refigured the <br />50% increase in the density of the General Business for the City with one proposal without going through a <br />public hearing process and have not considered the implications as applied to the rest of the City.) <br />B. Request form Washington County to adopt a Development Moratorium within the Browns Creek <br />Watershed District <br />The City received a memo from Jim Schug, Washington County Administrator, requesting the City adopt a <br />development moratorium for the small area within the Browns Creek Watershed. The Council concurred <br />with this request and started the process by calling a public hearing. <br />LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JULY 15, 1997 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.