01-31-95 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 31, 1995 M/S/P Hunt/Conlin - to table the motion to repeal the HPC until the HPC can meet and explain why they think they should not be a subcommittee of the Planning Commission. (Motion passed 4-0). M/S/P Johnston/Conlin - to table the appointments to the HPC. (Motion passed 4-0). B. Conditional Use Permits: Update from Code Enforcement Officer Jim McNamara has investigated the concerns raised by the Council at the last meeting. Jamie Olson Sign: The definition of a sign did not include the structure of the sign. The crossbar is part of the balancing of the structure which would not make the sign illegal. McNamara will send a letter to Jamie Olson at the time they renew their sign permit requesting the part of the structure that is now on the ground should be removed from the property. Trans -City Investment: The business sign was approved by the city council as a condition in 1987. As the code is written, the phone number on the sign does not make it illegal Springborn Green Acres: The security lights were requested by Washington County Sheriff's Dept. McNamara will mention to the Springborns that they install a motion detector or reflection shield. Since there is no problem with these lights according to city ordinance, the CUP did not need to be amended.. McNamara suggested the new planner update the lighting section of the code. C. Armstrong Petition for Annexation M/S/P Hunt/Conlin - to remove this item from the table. (Motion passed 4-0). Thomas G. Armstrong stated, "It has been 2 years and 12 days since he was before this council, and the Mayor said to work with the staff for some changes on the Alternative Ag Use ordinance. Nothing has happened since that time, but to go backwards on the entire thing. Trans City was granted 29,000 sq.ft. of outside storage- -twice what we have on 40 acres versus our 274 acres. If we were treated fairly in Lake Elmo we would certainly consider staying here. Until something changes --until we get an attitude that the Armstrongs aren't to be treated differently than other people, we are going to continue with the annexation. If this council can put four votes together, put an ordinance on the books and approve a CUP which allows us to do what we requested, we don't have a problem in staying in Lake Elmo. We want to go with the community that is going to allow us to continue the farm operation and as part of that operation, the storage business. I know its Armstrong , it isn't anything else because of the fact that no one else has applied under this ordinance. We are looking for equal treatment. I have grave questions on the legality of rescinding the ordinance because of the way it was acted upon. We feel that our rights under the Minnesota constitution and Federal