06-16-92 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 16, 1992 6 F. C.U.P. Update: (1) Armstrong When he looked at the city regulations, Attorney Filla found that in some manner the city treats Alternate Ag different and require that the entire site be included within the confines of the permit. We don't require that for other kinds of conditional uses in the Ag zone. Other than a procedural matter, he did not see anything improper with the way Mr. Armstrong is using the property in connection with our regulations. Filla was asked to address the way in which the city handles procedure on permits and give his opinion as to what you may do prospectively, as opposed to retroactively. The concept of site plan and permits go hand in hand. As part of this conditional use process, the city should require applicants to explain what they intend to do with the property, in addition to what is currently being used on the property. If that plan changes, the city has a chance to review what is occurring. (2) Bergmann Attorney Filla reported as far as he knows, the Bergmanns are still working within the site plans that were approved with possibly the exception of the pole barn. If the pole barn is located on the area that is not covered by the permit and is otherwise allowed in the Ag zone, it is not a problem. If the pole barn is located on the area covered by the permit, then there should have been an amendment to the permit at the time they made the addition. The problem with the Bergmann file there is a rather sketchy site plan. (3) Miscellaneous Councilman Williams made the following motion because he felt this would take care of the Bergmanns if the pole barn is not in the CUP property, there is no problem. Whatever number of greenhouses that are in their site plan when they first applied for the CUP and in the amendment is fixed and they can build up to that number. As far as the Armstrong CUP, Williams agreed with the city attorney's opinion that the entire parcel of contiguous land is included in the CUP and we should be aware of what is going on in that entire parcel. However, any uses consistent with our Agricultural zoning would be allowed including one house per forty.