Resolution 96-03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Resolution 96-3 Requesting Denial of Armstrong Petition for Detachment/Annexation Page 2 WHEREAS, on September 20, 1994, the City Council directed the Planning Commission reschedule a public hearing to review the Armstrong application. The Armstrong's continued to assert that a portion of the application was to amend the text of the City Code. The City Council agreed to continue processing this portion of the application as a request to add text to the City Code since the original text had been repealed by the City Council on June 21, 1994; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was commenced before the Planning Commission on October 24, 1994, and continued for further review until November 14, 1994; and WHEREAS, On November 14, 1994, the public hearing was concluded before the Planning Commission and was tabled; and WHEREAS, on December 12; 1994, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission requested additional information prior to making its recommendation to the City Council; and WHEREAS, On January 9, 1995, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission continued its review of the Armstrong application to a meeting which could be attended by the City Council. The Planning Commission wanted to understand the City Council's reasons for repealing the City's alternative Agricultural Use Regulations; and WHEREAS, at the Planning Commission meeting on February 27, 1995, after discussions with the City Council, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council deny reinstatement (amendment) of the Alternative Agricultural Use Regulations because the proposed addition (amendment) would allow a use that is not allowed anywhere else in the City and because it would allow spot zoning and recommended that the Armstrong's request to amend its conditional use permit be tabled for sixty days to pick a liaison from the Planning commission and City Council to consider other options; and WHEREAS, on March 7, 1995, the City Council reviewed the recommendations of the Planning Commission and directed staff to prepare findings to support the denial of the Armstrong application for a text addition (amendment) relating to Alternative Agricultural Uses; and WHEREAS, it is the City Council's determination that, at the present time, the City's prior Alternative Agricultural Use Regulations do not adequately protect the future welfare of the residents of the City of Lake Elmo because they do not address termination of such Alternative Agricultural Uses upon future development of adjacent property; and WHEREAS, it is the City Council's determination that the Armstrong application to add (amend) the City's Alternative Agricultural Use Regulations to the City Code, do not contain provisions which adequately protect the future welfare of the residents of the City of Lake Elmo and which otherwise properly address concerns about effective spot zoning; and