01-03-95 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 20, 1994 2 MIS/P Johnston/John - to adopt Resolution 94-33 granting a minor subdivision and lot ratio variance to Howard Michels, 8740 Stillwater Blvd. on the property so described in said Resolution. (Motion passed 4-0). B. Request from Thomas G. Armstrong for approval of Petition for Annexation The City received a letter submitted by Thomas G. Armstrong asking the city to approve a Petition by all the property owners of the concurrent detachment and annexation of certain land pursuant to Minnesota Statues Section 414.061, Subdivision 5. This letter is written on behalf of the Armstrong Family (Thomas G., Thomas P. and Jodi Armstrong) and Douglas and Jean DeCoster. In the petition to the Municipal Board it is stated "The boundary adjustment is being requested because of the City of Oakdale is better qualified to provide municipal services to the property. Oakdale offers more extensive administrative services, full time police protection, and better fire protection; available city water and sewer for those areas of the property ready for immediate development; and Oakdale is better prepared and qualified to provide planning, sewer and water for future development." Tom G. Armstrong stated a lawsuit has to be filed in order to straighten this matter out. We intend to sue for violation of our rights to equal protection under the law and for violation of our constitutional rights including due process. Those lawsuits of necessity involve naming both the city and individual members of the council and individual members of the staff who have participated in giving baseless interpretations. Attorney Filla explained there is a difference between conditional uses and permitted uses on that site. Permitted uses are allowed without any further authorization of Council as long as they comply with the city ordinances. The existence of the CUP and site plan which is attached, simply means the site plan should have been amended to reflect the original buildings. Filla added he has never indicated to the city that uses that are otherwise permitted in Ag zone could not be constructed on the Armstrong property even though there is a CUP. Filla stated "If the city changes its zoning regulations in order to eliminate special uses, the existing special uses would be classified as non conforming uses and would be allowed to continue, but could not be expanded. I specifically confined my comments to the special use portion of the site. It has never been my opinion that any thing other than the special use would have to remain 'as is' and could not be expanded. It is my opinion that until the city adopts alternate use regulations that Armstrong cannot expand the storage portion of his business beyond what is allowed in his CUP. It is not the city's opinion, nor my opinion, that you cannot do anything on your property --that may be your (Armstrong) opinion." M/S/P Mottaz/Contin - to table this item for discussion at an executive meeting because of threatened and pending litigation. (Motion passed 4-0).