My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-06-94 CCM
LakeElmo
>
City Council
>
City Council - Final Meeting Minutes
>
1990's
>
1994
>
09-06-94 CCM
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2025 2:51:18 PM
Creation date
10/2/2019 8:28:12 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 <br />B. Appeal Hearing to Administrative Decision: Thomas G. Armstrong, <br />Thomas P. Armstrong, Jodi Armstrong (Low Cost Storage) <br />Administrator Kueffner pointed out there was an error in the Request for Council Action <br />cover sheet. The ordinance was repealed by the City Council on June 21, 1994 and <br />was published and became effective on June 23, 1994. <br />Attorney Filla explained it is appropriate to consider the appeal of the property owner. <br />The application was to do two things: amend the text of the zoning code and to amend <br />the CUP. Once the city repealed the Alternate Ag regulations, which were standards <br />that were applicable to that type of use, there was nothing to judge the application by. <br />For that reason, it didn't make any sense to go forward with the application. <br />Thomas G. Armstrong asked the council to consider and to issue findings in writing as <br />to what action was taken by Administrator Kueffner. Armstrong added, "I am here to <br />merely exhaust our administrative remedies before taking further action. The PZ <br />already has made a recommendation to those exact changes to the ordinance and that <br />recommendation was made on February 28, 1994, and this council has never acted on <br />that recommendation." <br />Attorney Filla pointed out there are options available to the city: take action based upon <br />current code and the application of the property owner and to view the application as a <br />request to amend the text, first. Second, to amend the permit consistent with the text <br />that would be adopted OR recite, reasons if deciding not to go forward with the <br />application. Filla's recommendation, depending on the council's view of this, was to <br />prepare some written findings after some discussion of the council and bring them back <br />for their review OR let this matter wind its way to the PZ. The application is to expand <br />what is now a legal non conforming use which cannot be accomplished by a variance <br />because you cannot allow by variance a use that would not otherwise be permitted. <br />Alternate Ag is no longer an allowed special use in the Ag zone. <br />Councilman Johnson defended the request made because he felt this application was <br />submitted prior to the council's repealing the Alternate Ag and in denying Mr. Armstrong <br />the ability to go through the request that he has made we are being heavy handed, and <br />we should process the application according to what was in existence at the time the <br />application was made. <br />Council member Conlin pointed out that consideration of repealing the ordinance was <br />before the council prior to the application being submitted. They were considering <br />amending the Alternate Ag when the application was submitted. The council could not <br />prevent the Armstrong's from submitting the application. <br />Mayor John indicated during the time the city discussed amending the Alternate Ag <br />ordinance, the Armstrong CUP was declared outside the conditions of the CUP. Mr. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.