10-20-98 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Downs executed an Agreem(.., and Confession of Judgement securi nb removal of the garage by November 30, 1998. He stated that the Downs are now requesting the City council reconsider the garage removal condition. He said he had met with Mr. Downs on two occasions and advised him that in the R-1 zoning district he has a right to a total of 1200 square feet of accessory structure, including area of any attached garage. He said he had advised Mr. Downs that the carport does constitute structure area and therefore would be included in the square footage calculation for accessory structure. City Planner Dillerud said he was asking the Council to either affirm its earlier action regarding the garage removal or direct modification of the garage removal condition based. City Administrator Kueffner said the current garage had been illegally converted to living quarters again and that she recalled the City had gone through a pretty comprehensive study to arrive at the agreement. Mrs. Downs stated that there was no basement in the primary structure and in the case of an emergency, this was the only place for their family, including three children, could go for safety. Mayor Hunt said he saw three options available at this time; 1) reaffirm the original agreement; 2) "stop the clock" on the agreement and allow the Downs time to modify their plan; 3) schedule a variance Public Hearing. Councilmember Johnston said she recalled the original agreement was a complex issue and had been reached for good reason and is not inclined to make any changes at this time. Attorney Filla suggested that if an extension to the current agreement was granted, the City should get it in writing and be clear about a continuation and that this amended agreement be signed and recorded at the County before the next City Council meeting. M/S/P Dunn/Johnston — to direct staff to prepare an amended agreement extending the garage demolition date to June 30, 1999, with the intent being the staff work with the Downs on a modified plan. (Motion Passed 2-1). Opposed: Johnston; not inclined to change the original agreement. 4.0 Appeal by Countryside Pool & Spa — 9242 Hudson Blvd. City Planner Dillerud said, responsive to a complaint received from the public, Countryside Pool & Spa was in violation of the City's sign ordinance. Dennis Opland Owner — Countryside Pool & Spa Mr. Opland stated that his business has been located at the site for over ten years and the trailer with the signage has been utilized since 1991. He said he felt he had a legal right to have signage for his business . which would be viewable from the I-94 corridor. He said he would be willing to remove one trailer, but to simply put a small sign above the door would be a "joke." He said that if the City made him remove the signage, the City would be signing a "death wish" for his business. He said he was currently working with a local sign company to come up with an alternative and would entertain applying for a variance to install a larger sign. Terry Needham Resident Mr. Needham said he has dealt with a similar situation in City of Grant and said he felt Mr. Opland had a legal right to use the side of a semi -trailer for signage and the City of Lake Elmo has virtually nothing to say about it. Mr. Opland said he wanted a fair and equitable solution to this problem and wanted resolution at tonight's meeting. City of Lake Elmo Council Meeting Tuesday, October 20, 1998 page 2