Laserfiche WebLink
CITY OF LAKE EL MO <br />COUNTY OF WASHINGTON <br />RESOLUTION NO. 95-34 <br />A RESOLUTION DENYING THE ARMSTRONG REQUEST TO ADD <br />ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURAL USE REGULATIONS TO THE LAKE ELMO <br />CITY CODE. <br />1.0 WHEREAS, <br />A. By application dated June 9, 1994, Thomas GR Armstrong, <br />Jody M. Armstrong and Thomas P. Armstrong (herein <br />collectively "Armstrong") requested: <br />1. That the City of Lake Elmo amend the text of the <br />City's Alternative Agricultural Use Regulations as <br />contained in Lake Elmo Code §301.070D1b6 in the <br />manner proposed by the applicants, and <br />2® That the City amend the Armstrong's conditional use <br />permit in a manner that would be consistent with <br />the Armstrong's requested amendment to the City's <br />Alternative Agricultural Use Regulations. <br />B. On June 21, 1994, the Lake Elmo City Council adopted <br />Ordinance No® 8097 repealing the then existing Lake Elmo <br />Code §301.070D1b6 thereby placing all currently existing <br />alternative agricultural uses into a legal nonconforming <br />use category. <br />Co Prior to the City Council action on June 21, 1994, a <br />public hearing on the Armstrong application had been <br />scheduled before the Planning Commission for June 27, <br />1994. <br />D. On June 27, 19948 the Armstrong application was removed <br />from the Planning Commission Agenda because of the City <br />Council's action on June 21, 1994, in repealing the <br />Alternative Agricultural Regulations for the City <br />E. By correspondence dated August 10, 1994, Armstrong <br />requested that the City continue to process its <br />application even though the City Council had repealed the <br />Alternative Agricultural Use Regulations on June 21, <br />1994. <br />F. On September 208 1994,, the City Council directed that the <br />Planning Commission reschedule a public hearing to review <br />the Armstrong application Armstrong continued to assert <br />