09-20-94 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 4B. Response from engineer to VBWD At the last meeting, the Council discussed the important features of the VBWD 509 plan and Bohrer reduced those comments to writing, included Gordy Grundeen's comments as instructed, and a letter to the VBWD from the Mayor regarding the green slime. Bohrer then called Randy Peterson, Barr Engineering and representative for VBWD, who explained this was not going to be an agenda item at the VBWD meeting, so he faxed the comments to Randy Peterson who later had left a message on this voice mail to all him because he.had some questions on Mr.Grundeen's submittal. Bohrer will make copies for the council of his letter to the VBWD. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: A. Armstrong -Appeal Hearing The council received a letter from Jerry Filla, dated September 16, 1994, on the Armstrong request for Text Amendment and Conditional Use Permit Amendment. Filla indicated the property owners do have the right to have their request receive formal review and ultimately a decision from the Council. Filla recommended that the two matters be placed back on the Planning Commission agenda for a public hearing after appropriate notice. Attorney Miller explained the Armstrongs do not have any vested rights in the prior ordinance. If they are to go forward with the current proposal, it would be the functional equivalent of reinstating the Alternative Ag and then examination of the CUP. Administrator Kueffner pointed out the application has to be amended to reflect, rather than a text amendment, a request for reinstatement of the ordinance to enable them to proceed. They have proposed an amendment to the text that would have proceeded had it not been repealed. That text can now be submitted as the new Alternate Ag regulations because that is what they want and the application can proceed that way. Tom P. Armstrong stated their position is the application, as submitted, should proceed under the ordinance that was in existence at the time the application was made. They have no plans to alter the application. Attorney Miller answered Councilman Johnson's questions that a public hearing can be held without the council reinstating Alternate Ag Zoning. Councilman Mottaz asked, "Does that put us in a position where someone can make a claim that our action considering this to be our reinstating the Alternate Ag?" Attorney Miller didn't think that argument could be made because all you are doing at this time is saying that the request should be put back into a posture where there is a public hearing on the request. The result of the public hearing may be that the Planning Commission would ultimately come to the conclusion that the request is not proper procedurally because Alternative Ag had been previously eliminated.