02-04-86 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 1986 Page 7 Armstrong and Mr. Mazzara and heard Mr. Armstrong's argument for allowing the use. 301.30 - acceptable uses and structures. It was argued that this is a use which was customarily accessory in the area and clearly incidental and subordinate to permitted uses. Now that is a factual question, as to whether or not that in fact is the practice. Going on the assumption that it is the practice, then in fact the argument is that this would be an allowed use in this instance. On the other hand, it becomes ambiguous in the following clause: "storage buildings for use by occupants of the principal structure", which seems to limit that and so there is some need for clarification. There is some reason for concern about possible expansion of the use with no limitations. As I indicated at the close of the Monday meeting, it is my opinion that as it is currently structured, the City really does not have an enforceable position in terms of tagging Mr. Armstrong. However, there is a policy concern about the expansion of this use in the future. In Section 301.050B dealing with preservation of non -conforming uses, the question is whether the use that was being made of the property was not a conforming use at the time, or is not now. Again, this is a factual question, if this use was being made improperly. Prior to the present time, it is allowed. We cannot prohibit it, but we can certainly limit it. I would be more than willing to look into this and draft an acceptable list of allowed ues, if this is the Council's desire. At this time, it is my belief that we do not have a citable violation here, although, there is a legitimate concern. Tom Armstrong - I agree with the City Attorney's position. This ordinance is not as distinct as it should be. The City's policy has been to preserve Agricultural uses, and I would urge the Planning Commission to study some uses for Agricultural land which would allow economic returns. Mr. Mazzara stated that if a business is allowed, putting up a 12,000 sq.ft. building on an Ag zone and advertising, then I believe that the City is in a position where they would not be able to enforce that and this is the concern. Mayor Morgan agreed that there is an ambiguity in our code. The City Attorney has given us -his opinion that no taggable offense has been committed. The thing to do is to have City Administrator Overby and City Attorney Knaak, along with Mr. Mazzara and Mr. Armstrong if they wish to participate, to see if we cannot establish codes that are more understandable and more enforceable. If you need help from the Planning Commission or the City Planner, then do it. If there is anything we can do to help the farmers without blatantly violating our own codes, I think that we should do it.