Laserfiche WebLink
intended to preclude by contract uses of the site (otherwise allowed in the GB zoning district) other than <br />that of E&H, as well as to overcome the exclusion of outside storage of contractors equipment that is found <br />in GB use standards. <br />Planner Dillerud reported the Commission endorsed E&H's desire to vacate the site at 10`h and Manning <br />where he is located as a legal non -conforming use. The majority of the Commission did not believe the <br />solution proposed by the application is proper land use planning. The existing Trans City Conditional Use <br />Permit for Alternative Ag use was viewed by the Commission as a clear procedural impediment to at least <br />the Minor Subdivision application. The Commission Chair offered the applicant the alternative of tabling <br />the application to enable investigation of other solutions to the 10°i/Manning site, but the applicant declined <br />and requested a vote of the Planning Commission. <br />Tim Freeman, representing E&H Earthmovers, agreed with the Planner's report. E&H Earthmovers started <br />in east Oakdale way back when it was called east Oakdale. They found a better solution to move it out of a <br />residential area and into a business area, but cannot find a way through the Code to allow the relocation. <br />The Planning Commission agreed with the staff report and after a motion was made to deny, a motion was <br />made that they liked the proposal and asked Council the procedural way to make it happen. <br />The City Planner stated the Council needs to decide how they feel about relocating E&H within the City? <br />The Contractors' shop is allowed in GB, but the storage yard is not. Where would you want to apply the <br />GB zoning district in the community? <br />M/S/P DeLapp/Armstrong — to adopt Resolutions 99-76 Denying the applications of E&H Earth <br />Movers/Trans City Investments for a Comp Plan Amendment, Resolution No. 99-77 Denying Rezoning, <br />Resolution No. 99-78 Denying PUD Concept Plan, Resolution No. 99— 79 Denying Minor Subdivision, <br />based on the findings of the Planning Commission. (Motion passed 3-1:Siedow felt the zoning laws are too <br />strict, cannot see into the future so have to take a look at each application individually.) <br />Council member Armstrong pointed out Mr. Emerson doesn't own this land yet, so it is up to Mr. Gelb to <br />come to the City. The Concept of Alternate AG is to preserve open space not to accommodate uses that <br />don't fit anywhere else in the code. <br />Council member DeLapp indicated situations such as this that may not be permitted in the code but could <br />be considered under Alternate AG zoning. The City should consider rebirth of Alternate AG with strict <br />controls on lighting, and landscaping. <br />Mayor Hunt indicated the Administrator brought up the possibility of transitional zoning. He would favor <br />relocation of such proposal of low investment. <br />M/S/P DeLapp/Siedow — to direct the staff to call a workshop between the Council, Planning Commission, <br />Village Commission, Staff, after the conclusion of the PF ordinance is approved, for the discussion of <br />making uses such as heavy commercial available within the City and consider if there is need for Alternate <br />Ag. (Motion passed 4-0) <br />B. Participation Authorization — Surface Water Infiltration Monitoring Project <br />Brett Emmons of Emmons & Oliver, a Lake Elmo based environmental engineering firm, has proposed an <br />application to the Metropolitan Council for grant funding regarding surface water infiltration that would <br />include participation by the City. The Council received a draft grant application. The Emmons study is an <br />effort to close the gap between theory and practice by monitoring surface water infiltration sites that will be <br />constructed in the Fields of St. Croix OP neighborhood for a two year period to determine the performance <br />of the infiltration as well as the costs to maintain the infiltration sites. The $62,000 study would be 75% <br />funded by the Metropolitan Council, with the 25% "local match" being the cost to build the infiltration sites <br />by Mr. Engstrom, donated services by the Fields of CSA to monitor rain fall amounts; and $3500 by the <br />City to publish and distribute the resulting manual on the infiltration alternative. The City's contribution <br />would not come until near the end of the project — 2002. <br />LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 1999 4 <br />