02-17-98 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

D. Schedule Workshop with Planning Commission to review proposed amendments to OP regulations At its February 9, 1998 meeting, the Planning Commission moved to invite the City Council to its Monday, February 23"d meeting. The intent of this invitation is to further discuss the amendments to the Open Space Preservation Zoning District. Several Council members had a conflict with this date and made the following motion. M/S/P Johnston/DeLapp — to table the scheduling of a workshop on the proposed amendments to OP regulations and ask the Planning Commission to set alternate dates. (Motion passed 3-0). 9. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT: A. Lighting Ordinance Attorney Filla provided an opinion dated February 16, 1998 on Amortization of Non -Conforming Uses. This opinion was in response to the question, "Can the City retroactively apply regulations to existing uses?" The original question was raised regarding the lighting ordinance in reference to the River Valley Christian Church. The City does not have amortization provisions in its current regulations. If the City intends to adopt this type of regulation, it should inventory all apparent non -conforming uses and send out appropriate notices to begin the amortization process. New regulations can effectively be made retroactive to existing uses, including any legally existing signs, through the application of reasonable amortization regulations. These comments do not apply to illegal uses. M/S/P DeLapp/Johnston — to add to the March 17, 1998 City Council agenda, Discussion on Amortization on Non -conforming Uses. If this agenda is too large, the staff can reschedule this agenda item to another meeting. (Motion passed 3-0). B. Animal Inn Complex The Council had asked that the Planner and City Attorney review the history of the Animal Inn Complex on Highway 5. In his letter dated February 12, 1998, the City Attorney reviewed the Conditional Use Permit and zoning history for the Animal Inn Complex and for the Vet Clinic -hospital property. On February 11, 1998, the City Planner and Attorney met with Dr. Swanson and representatives of the Veterinary Hospital Association. At the meeting, Dr. Swanson explained he thought he was in compliance under the Conditional Use Permit he was granted. Each year his CUP was reviewed. The City did not notify him that he was in violation. He did not know he was operating illegally until VHA made application to the City. Attorney Filla explained in order to accommodate the requested use of the VHA, the City would need to: a. Amend the Ag zone regs to allow this use; or b. Rezone the property to a commercial use and then add some regulations to the selected zoning category for this type of use; and c. In either case, probably amend the comprehensive plan. The Swanson group would like to proceed with their application. The application was not processed because the request made was not a permitted use. As advised by Attorney Filla, the City needed to decide if it wished to change its regulations to accommodate the proposed use. If it chooses not to amend its regulations, the City should deny the VHA request because it does not comply with the City's zoning code. M/S/P DeLapp/Johnston — to direct the City Administrator to follow the ordinances in respect to the application that has been received, and to send a letter to VHA stating the City does not intend to amend the Ag zone regs to allow this use or to rezone the property to a commercial use and then add some regulations 1\ to the selected zoning category for this type of use. (Motion passed 3-0). LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 1998 7